[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE U.S. PARK POLICE ATTACK ON PEACE-
FUL PROTESTERS AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE--PART 1
***
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE U.S.
PARK POLICE'S JUNE 1 ATTACK ON
PEACEFUL PROTESTERS AT LAFAYETTE
SQUARE--PART 2
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Monday, June 29, 2020 (Part 1)
Tuesday, July 28, 2020 (Part 2)
__________
Serial No. 116-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-718 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Joe Cunningham, SC Daniel Webster, FL
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Liz Cheney, WY
Diana DeGette, CO Mike Johnson, LA
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Debbie Dingell, MI John R. Curtis, UT
Anthony G. Brown, MD Kevin Hern, OK
A. Donald McEachin, VA Russ Fulcher, ID
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Monday, June 29, 2020, Part 1.................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 4
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Haaland, Hon. Debra A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico, Statement for the record.............. 70
Statement of Witnesses:
Brace, Amelia, U.S. Correspondent, Seven News Australia...... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Questions submitted for the record....................... 16
Budde, Mariann, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Washington...... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
McDonald, Kishon, Civil Rights Demonstrator.................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Questions submitted for the record....................... 8
Turley, Jonathan, Law Professor, George Washington University
Law School................................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Questions submitted for the record....................... 28
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Department of the Interior, Letter from Sec. Bernhardt to
Chair Grijalva dated June 5, 2020.......................... 71
Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Park Police Labor Committee,
Letter to the Editor dated June 19, 2020................... 46
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Letter from
Cole Rojewski, Director to Chair Grijalva re: declining to
send Mr. Gregory T. Monahan, Assistant Chief of the U.S.
Park Police dated June 24, 2020............................ 48
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 72
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 28, 2020, Part 2................... 73
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 74
Prepared statement of.................................... 75
Hice, Hon. Jody B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 76
Statement of Witnesses:
DeMarco, Adam D., Major, District of Columbia National Guard. 116
Prepared statement of.................................... 118
Questions submitted for the record....................... 121
Monahan, Gregory T., Acting Chief, United States Park Police,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 143
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. PARK POLICE ATTACK ON PEACEFUL PROTESTERS
AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE--PART 1
----------
Monday, June 29, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:02 p.m., in
1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Napolitano, Costa,
Sablan, Huffman, Lowenthal, Gallego, Cox, Neguse, Levin,
Haaland, Cunningham, DeGette, Clay, Dingell, Brown, Soto,
Horsford, Tonko, Garcia; Bishop, Gohmert, Lamborn, McClintock,
Westerman, Gonzalez-Colon, and Fulcher.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The Committee on Natural
Resources will come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
``U.S. Park Police Attack on Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette
Square.''
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from the
witnesses sooner, and help Members keep to their schedules.
Therefore, I am asking unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or at the
close of the hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
As described in the notice, statements, documents, or
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at
[email protected].
Additionally, please note that, as with our fully in-person
meeting, Members are responsible for their own microphones. As
with our fully in-person meetings, Members can be muted by
staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise. Anyone
present at the hearing today must wear a mask covering their
mouth and nose. The Speaker of the House and the Sergeant at
Arms, acting upon the recommendations of the Attending
Physician, require face coverings for all indoor gatherings
over 15 minutes in length, such as Committee meetings.
Accordingly, to maintain decorum and protect the safety of
Members and staff, the Chair will not recognize any Member in
this hearing room to speak who is not wearing a mask. According
to House Rule 17 and Committee Rule 3(d), the Chair retains the
right of recognition of any Member who wishes to speak or offer
a motion. The right includes the responsibility to maintain
decorum.
As permitted by the Sergeant at Arms guidance, the Chair
will make exceptions for Members briefly removing their masks
to facilitate lip reading by viewers who are deaf or hard of
hearing, as I am doing presently.
Finally, Members or witnesses who experience technical
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
With that, I will recognize myself for the opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The Chairman. A Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee
on the neck of George Floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. For 8
minutes and 46 seconds, we all have witnessed the slow and
painful death of Mr. Floyd, and it has created a demanding,
anguished cry for action to deal with the legacy of racism in
this country.
And that cry, that anguished cry, has risen all across the
Nation. Thousands of Americans have taken to the street to
offer a strong declaration--that is really a plea for basic
humanity--that Black Lives Matter. They protest to honor the
all-too-many Black men, women, and children whose lives have
been affected, cut short at the hands of racism and brutality.
They protest to demand change and to demand that their
constitutional rights be upheld, and call upon government for
systemic response to the systemic racism that afflicts us as a
legacy.
Astonishingly, instead of honoring this collective outcry
for justice, this Administration answered demands to end police
brutality with more police brutality. On the afternoon of June
1, President Trump called state governors and berated them for
not being aggressive enough, saying, and I quote, ``You have to
dominate. If you don't dominate, you're wasting your time.'' He
made clear this is a war, us against the protesters.
Of course, he was probably especially angry after we all
found out that he had retreated to the White House bunker the
night before.
That same afternoon, overwhelmingly peaceful protesters
gathered at Lafayette Square Park. Park Police, National Guard,
and other law enforcement lined the perimeter of the park.
Then, around 6:30 p.m., nearly a half-hour before the DC curfew
would take effect, the Park Police and their law enforcement
partners suddenly moved in on the protesters.
Peaceful protesters, innocent bystanders, and members of
the press were all caught up in a chaotic barrage of shields,
batons, horses, projectiles, and tear gas. The militarized
assault even hit people from the historic St. John's Church,
neighbor to the White House, and a friend of presidents for
many years. Clergy and church staff who were handing out water
were reportedly pushed off their own patio by officers.
Once everybody had been forcibly expelled from the so-
called battle space, the world witnessed something even more
incredible. President Trump, accompanied by the Attorney
General and other White House advisers--and, it should be
added, top military brass--strolled through the park to St.
John's Church, where he posed with a Bible for a brief photo
op. And St. John's had no idea the President was going to do
this.
Peaceful protesters, church, and press all fell victim to
this Administration's violent and senseless operation.
Remarkably, these victims also embody our three main freedoms
protected by the First Amendment: freedom of speech and
assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
The Trump administration is still scrambling to explain how
this happened, often contradicting itself, ample video
evidence, and the accounts of people at the scene, people who
felt the batons hit their bodies, and the chemical munitions
burn their eyes.
We are fortunate to have some of those people here as
witnesses today, as well as the Bishop who presides over St.
John's Church itself.
I want to thank all of you for giving of your time to help
us answer the many questions still surrounding this
indefensible attack on our own people and our basic freedoms.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
Natural Resources
On May 25, a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee onto the
neck of George Floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. For 8 minutes and 46
seconds, this officer slowly and painfully murdered Mr. Floyd--a
father, brother, and son--depriving him of his life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness.
The public response to George Floyd's murder has been loud and
persistent. Thousands of Americans have taken to the streets to offer a
fervent declaration that is really a plea for basic humanity: BLACK
LIVES MATTER. They protest to honor the all-too-many Black men, women,
and children whose lives have been cut short at the hands of racism and
police brutality. They protest to demand change and to demand that
their constitutional rights be upheld.
Astonishingly, instead of honoring this collective outcry for
justice, this Administration answered demands to end police brutality
with MORE police brutality. On the afternoon of June 1, President Trump
called State Governors and berated them for not being aggressive
enough, saying, ``You have to dominate. If you don't dominate, you're
wasting your time.'' He made clear: This is war--us against the
protesters.
Of course, he was probably especially angry after we all found out
he had retreated to the White House bunker the night before.
That same afternoon, overwhelmingly peaceful protesters gathered
around Lafayette Square. Park Police, National Guard, and other law
enforcement menacingly lined the perimeter of the park. Then, around
6:30 p.m., nearly a half hour before the DC curfew would take effect,
the Park Police and their law enforcement partners suddenly attacked.
Peaceful protesters, innocent bystanders, and members of the press
were all caught in a chaotic barrage of shields, batons, horses,
projectiles, and tear gas. The militarized assault even hit people from
historic St. John's Church, neighbor to the White House and a friend to
presidents for many years. Clergy and church staff who were handing out
water were reportedly pushed off their own patio by officers.
Once everyone had been forcibly expelled from the so-called battle
space, the world witnessed something even more incredible. President
Trump, accompanied by advisors and military brass, strolled through the
park to St. John's church, where he posed with a Bible for a brief
photo op. St. John's had no idea the president was going to do this.
Peaceful protesters, church, and press all fell victim to this
Administration's violent and senseless operation. Remarkably, these
victims also embody our three main freedoms protected by the First
Amendment: freedom of speech and assembly; freedom of religion; and
freedom of the press.
The Trump administration is still scrambling to explain how this
happened, often contradicting itself, ample video evidence, and the
accounts of people at the scene--people who felt the batons hit their
bodies and the chemical munitions burn their eyes. We are fortunate to
have some of those people here as witnesses today, as well as the
bishop who presides over St. John's Church itself.
I want to thank you all for giving your time to help us answer the
many questions still surrounding this indefensible attack on our own
people and our basic freedoms.
______
The Chairman. I would now like to turn to the Ranking
Member, Mr. Bishop, for his opening statement.
Mr. Bishop, you are recognized.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, wherever you are.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. I know that when Democrats were in the
Minority, they used to object to some of the titles which we
had on our hearings. You guys have learned very well from that.
I appreciate that.
Not only have you come up with new titles that are unique
for yourselves, but this one is especially inflammatory and
pejorative. So, congratulations on it.
There are issues that need to be discussed. That said, we
have serious issues to address in the present, and we would be
selling our society very short without ensuring that there is
full truth as to what was going on that is recorded in our
history, not just a myopic and biased view. And, unfortunately,
that means that this hearing, as far as understanding truth of
what went on, and coming up with a good history, is going to be
invalid.
Two of the witnesses that we will be hearing from today are
involved in litigation or investigations, and are here even
before any of that stuff started, which may be legal, but it is
highly questionable.
An invitation was given to some in the Park Service who
volunteered to come in later, after the litigation period had
at least begun, but that was rejected. And instead, we decided
to move ahead with what can only be described as really good
political theater.
I mean, there are questions that need to be answered.
There was a question of why the police moved prior to the
curfew actually existing.
There are questions of why the DC Mayor decided to put a
curfew on in the first place.
There are questions of was this part of a plan that was
established 48 hours prior to the event or not.
There are questions of why three warnings with the decibel
level that is equivalent to a jet aircraft taking off were not
heard by people. Or were they actually there? And when were
they done?
There is a question about the amount of violence that took
place. Protests, as we all know, are legal. But arson is not.
Destruction of property is not. Attacking police is not. We do
know that in the Park Service police, within a period of 2
weeks within this there were 50 policemen that were attacked,
that were harmed, that were injured. At least one went to the
hospital, presumably to conduct surgery at the time.
All of those are legitimate questions. And all of those
legitimate questions are not going to be addressed in this
Committee hearing today. It is simply--the structure is not
designed to do that. The structure is not designed to come up
with a historical statement. The structure is designed to come
up with good drama.
Look, on the flight back here I was able to watch three
movies. Two of them were historical dramas, historical fiction.
They were well done. And what we are attempting to do today
would fit nice into that genre of activities. The other was a
musical. I wish you could do that one, that was more enjoyable.
But the Democrats here have now produced something that is
not going to be substantive, that is not going to be
historical, that is really a distraction. It is political
theater as an attempt to do it.
So, Mr. Grijalva, for you and Watkins, you have learned
this job very well. I would urge you to become producers of
movies. You can do extremely well in that area. But please
don't try to write a textbook, because you are leaving too many
questions out that need to be part of the narrative, and need
to be part of the answers.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. And now I will
introduce the witnesses.
Let me begin with Kishon McDonald, DC resident, and who was
a peaceful protester on the day of the event.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but that
their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will begin, and will turn orange
when you have 1 minute remaining. I recommend the Members and
witnesses joining remotely use active speaker thumbnail view,
so they may pin the timer on their screen, and see the Members
in the room.
With that, Mr. McDonald, welcome. The time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF KISHON MCDONALD, CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONSTRATOR
Mr. McDonald. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and
members of this Committee on Natural Resources, my name is
Kishon McDonald. I am a 39-year-old resident of northeastern
Washington, DC. I have been a resident here for the past 5
years. I was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. I honorably
served my country in the U.S. Navy on the USS Leyte Gulf as a
yeoman third class. I am employed with United Airlines as a
mechanic at the Dulles Airport. I appreciate the invitation to
share my experience with you today.
On June 1, I decided to join in a peaceful protest against
racial injustice. I know that there was a curfew imposed for
that evening, so I went down as part of my usual run, and
planned to run back home by the curfew time of 7 p.m.
I arrived at 16th and 9th Street around 6 p.m. I observed
military vehicles, uniformed soldiers, blocked-off streets, and
a huge police presence. I began recording the scene from my
phone: primarily, because I wanted to record this moment in
history; second, for my safety, because Trump had made threats
of ominous weapons and vicious dogs to be used on protesters.
I walked from 16th and I Streets directly toward Lafayette
Park, and observed huge group of diverse, peaceful protesters
chanting for George Floyd and for change. It was an
overwhelming experience, and it was powerful to be a part of
it. The chanting continued around 6:25 p.m., when officers
started approaching us as we stood on the north side of
Lafayette Park along the fencing.
The officers stopped for a few minutes about 10 to 15 yards
away, and they moved closer, as if we were posing a threat,
which we were not. They got directly in front of us, to the
point we could have a conversation with them. They got very
close to us in a threatening kind of way. They gave no
instructions, and just a show of force.
We stood our ground. We told them we were peaceful and we
wanted no trouble. We were met with silence. At no time did I
hear any instructions to move. And if we did hear instructions,
I would have moved. I am sure the crowd would have moved,
because we were very peaceful during the entire time before we
were attacked.
Right before 6:30 p.m., I observed a line of police in riot
robocop gear coming in from my left. Now, at this point the
soldiers were communicating, but it was yelling, ``Move,
move.'' They were not walking. They were pushing and running
toward us with their shields, and people started to panic. A
word of confusion ensued. I could not really understand what
was going on, why they were responding in that manner, seeing
it was way before curfew, 30 minutes before curfew.
I observed a Black male fall to the ground and protesters
circled around him and demanded it please stop so a medic could
assist him. The officer stopped briefly on the south side of
St. John's Church. We grabbed the male and started to retreat.
Police started throwing tear gas and flash bang grenades at
us for no reason. We were retreating. We didn't need any help
retreating. Using weapons on us was ridiculous. It just made
the situation dangerous.
Even before the officers charged us or fired their weapons,
it had been peaceful. This is the most important block in the
world. We are in front of the most powerful governing house in
the world. It is citizens who are being attacked by their own
government just for asking and protesting for change. I was
scared, confused, and angry.
I did CS gas training boot camp. This group of
demonstrators were not soldiers. This wasn't a battle station
test, but it was similar to a boot camp drill. It is
unacceptable to treat protestors that way in our own city and
Nation.
Once I got home, I reviewed my footage and pictures. It was
then I noticed U.S. Park Police on one of the officers who
forced us up from the left as we stood along the fence in
Lafayette Park. I joined a lawsuit challenging the attack on me
and other demonstrators, so someone will be held accountable.
At this moment, it is a forgotten history.
I have seen footage of this kind of attack on African-
American prisons in the 1960s when we wanted change. The dogs
and water cannons from the 1960s have turned into tear gas and
flash bangs today. It hurts, as a Black man, to see it is 2020
and we still have a government that will do this again, over
something that seems so right to protest about.
The damage was done the minute the President decided to
violate our First Amendment right. How was it the KKK can hold
a rally in DC and be protected, but when a Black man is killed
we protest in honor of him and we are attacked? How can you not
perceive this attack on a Black Lives Matter movement?
I served this country so everyone could enjoy the freedoms
granted to us under this Constitution. If anyone had the right
to be there, it was me. I should not have been forced to move
and attacked with tear gas and flash bangs as I was peacefully
protesting for change. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kishon McDonald
My name is Kishon McDonald, and I am a 39-year-old resident of
Northeast Washington DC. I've been a resident here for the past 5 years
but was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. I honorably served my
country in the U.S. Navy on the USS Leyte Gulf as a YN-E3. I'm
currently employed with United Airlines as a mechanic at the Dulles
airport. I appreciate the invitation to share my experiences with you
today.
On June 1, 2020, I decided to join in the peaceful protest at
Lafayette Park against racial injustice. I know there was a curfew
imposed for that evening so I went there as part of my usual run and
planned to run back home by the curfew time of 7 p.m.
I arrived on 16th & I Street around 6 p.m., and I observed military
vehicles and uniform soldiers, blocked-off streets and a huge police
presence. I began recording the scene on my phone primarily because I
wanted to record this moment in history and second for my safety
because Trump had made a threat of ``ominous weapons'' and ``vicious
dogs'' to be used on protesters.
I walked from 16th & I Street directly toward Lafayette Park and
observed a huge group of diverse peaceful protesters chanting for
George Floyd and for change. It was an overwhelming experience, and it
was powerful to be a part of it. The chanting continued until around
6:25 p.m., when officers started approaching us as we stood on the
north side of Lafayette Park along the fencing. The officers stopped
for a few minutes about 10 to 15 yards away, then moved closer to us as
if we were posing a threat, which we were not. They got directly in
front of us to the point we could have a conversation with them. They
got very close to us in a threatening kind of way. They gave no
instructions. It was just a show of force.
We stood our ground. We told them we were peaceful and wanted no
trouble. We were met with silence. At no time did I hear any
instructions to move, and if we did hear instructions I would have
moved and I'm sure the crowd would have moved because we were very
peaceful during the entire time before we were attacked.
Right after 6:30 p.m. I observed a line of police in riot Robocop
gear coming in from my left. Now at this point the soldiers were
communicating, but it was yelling ``MOVE! MOVE!'' They were not
walking. They were pushing and running toward us with their shields,
and people started to panic and a world of confusion ensued. I could
not really understand what was going on or why they were responding in
that manner seeing it was way before curfew--30 minutes before.
I observed a Black male fall to the ground and protesters circled
around him and demanded police stop so a medic could come assist him.
The officers stopped briefly on the south side of St John's Church. We
grabbed the male and started to retreat. Then the police started
throwing tear gas and flash bang grenades at us for no reason. We were
retreating. We didn't need any help retreating.
Using weapons on us was ridiculous and just made the situation
dangerous, even though before the officers charged us or fired their
weapons it had been peaceful. This is the most important block in the
world, and we are in front of the most powerful governing house in the
world. It's citizens who are being attacked by our own government just
for asking and protesting for change. I was scared, confused and angry.
I continued recording and tried to ask officers, ``Would you do
this to your children?'' and ``Would you attack your children over
protesting for change?'' I was met with tear gas and a flash bangs
which exploded with shrapnel. I felt a searing hot pain on my legs and
thighs. In news footage I have seen, you can observe me jumping up and
down; I'm the one with the neon shorts on when the force of police
pushed us up 16th Street and protesters were trampled.
I did CS gas training in boot camp. This group of demonstrators
were not soldiers. This wasn't a battle stations test. But this was
similar to a boot camp drill. It's unacceptable to treat protesters
like that in our own city and nation.
Once I got home I reviewed all my footage and pictures. It was then
that I noticed U.S. Park Police officers among the force who attacked
us from the left as we stood along the fence in Lafayette Park.
I joined a lawsuit challenging the attack on me and the other
demonstrators so someone will be held accountable and this moment in
history isn't forgotten. I've seen footage of this kind of attack on
African American protesters in the 1960s when we wanted change. The
dogs and water cannons from the 60s have turned into tear gas and flash
bangs today. It hurts as a Black man to see that it's 2020 and we still
have a government who would do this to us again over something that
seems so right to protest about. The damage was done the minute the
President decided to violate our First Amendment rights. How is it the
KKK can hold a rally in DC and be protected, but when a Black man is
killed, we protest in honor of him and are attacked? How can you not
perceive this as an attack on the Black Lives Matter movement?
I served this country so everyone could enjoy the freedoms granted
to us under the Constitution. If anyone had the right to be there it
was me. I should not have been forced to move and attacked with tear
gas and flash bangs as I was peacefully protesting for change.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Chair Grijalva to Mr. Kishon
McDonald, Civil Rights Demonstrator
Question 1. Did you see the U.S. Park Police, military, or other
law enforcement entity at Lafayette Square on the evening of June 1,
2020 wearing any cameras, either when you were on the scene, or in
footage afterwards? Did you see any other video recording equipment
associated with any of the police or military forces? If so, please
provide details.
Answer. In response to the query you posed, Mr. McDonald answers
that although he did not observe any cameras on the Park Police, a
photograph he took that day showed one federal officer with a GoPro on
his helmet. The picture he took is attached below, with the camera
circled.
[GRAPHIHC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me now recognize Amelia Brace, Correspondent, Seven
News Australia.
The time is yours, please.
STATEMENT OF AMELIA BRACE, U.S. CORRESPONDENT, SEVEN NEWS
AUSTRALIA
Ms. Brace. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
Bishop, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to
speak today.
For more than 3 years, I have been the U.S. correspondent
for Seven News, one of Australia's largest commercial
broadcasters. I have been called to testify about my experience
covering protests near Lafayette Square Park, particularly the
incident in which my cameraman, Tim Myers, and I were
physically assaulted by Park Police on June 1, while we were
broadcasting live to Australia with hundreds of thousands of
people watching, including our families.
This video, which formed part of the coverage in Australia,
shows the incident from multiple angles.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Brace. We began our coverage at Lafayette at 5:45 p.m.
The atmosphere was passionate, but peaceful. In fact, it was
far less tense than it had been the night before. As we
prepared for our 6:30 p.m. live broadcast we noticed riot
police lines begin to form.
We were not alarmed by this sight, as it initially
resembled the enforcement of curfew the night before, and we
still had more than half an hour before this curfew was due to
take effect. Regardless, members of the media were exempt from
curfew restrictions. We did not hear any warning from law
enforcement that the area was to be cleared, or that the curfew
would be enforced early.
Suddenly, the police line surged forward. We moved back,
along with many protesters. Police lining the park used
automatic weapons to fire non-lethal rounds. Tim was hit with a
projectile in the back of the neck, and our equipment was
damaged.
After this first surge, we took cover behind a tree as Tim
tried to get the now-damaged live transmitter working. We saw
the line of police start to walk toward us at a walking pace.
To ensure we were completely out of the way of both police and
protesters, we moved to the fence line, where we were sheltered
by a concrete wall and also a sidewalk.
We were clearly a news crew. Most notably, Tim was holding
a large television camera. We were also surrounded by other
members of the media, and given no directive by police to move
on. As I began reporting live, the line of police suddenly and
without warning began charging forward at a sprinting pace,
knocking protesters to the ground.
A Park Police officer who was passing us stopped, turned
toward Tim, and rammed him in the chest and stomach with the
edge of his riot shield, causing Tim to keel over and drop
down. The officer then took a step back, paused, then punched
his hand directly into the front of Tim's camera, grabbing the
lens. As this happened, Tim and I were both repeatedly shouting
the word, ``Media.''
A second officer appeared to intervene, giving us the
opportunity to move. As I was running away, a third officer
pushed through the group, going out of his way to strike me
with a truncheon. As we tried once again to clear the advancing
line of police, loud flash bangs boomed around us, and some
sort of chemical irritant and plumes of smoke filled the air. I
could be heard screaming as I was struck by non-lethal
projectiles directly to my legs and backside.
The incident prompted Australia's Prime Minister to direct
our Ambassador to the United States to seek a full
investigation.
As a reporter, I have no interest in becoming the story.
But over recent weeks, many of us have been left with no
choice. I have been shocked to see how many journalists have
been attacked, beaten, and detained just for doing their jobs.
Covering protests does carry unavoidable risks, but the media's
role is essential. We don't just have a right to be there, we
have an obligation.
As Australian journalists, we are the eyes and the ears of
our people--in this case, witnessing civil unrest in the
capital of our most powerful and closest ally. It is crucial to
democracy that journalists be allowed to do their job freely
and safely. And that is certainly something we should expect in
the world's greatest democracy.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amelia Brace, a U.S. Correspondent for the Seven
Network
Thank you Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of
this Committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Amelia
Brace. I am a U.S. Correspondent for the Seven Network, which is one of
the largest broadcast television networks in Australia. I am here to
testify about my experience covering the protests in Lafayette Square
Park, and, in particular, the incident in which my cameraman, Tim
Myers, and I were physically attacked by U.S. Park Police officers when
they cleared out the park in the afternoon on Monday, June 1, 2020.
Even though we were out of the way of the advancing officers and were
clearly identifiable as a news crew, we were directly assaulted without
provocation by two separate officers.
This is a situation where the video speaks louder than any words
could. This link shows the Seven News broadcast about the incident from
the next day, which captures the incident both from the perspective of
our own camera feed, which was broadcast live to Australian audiences,
and from another angle captured by a local news crew here: https://
youtu.be/yzNMdWOoC7M?t=33.
The live broadcast, showing the incident and the in-studio anchors'
reactions happening in real time, can be seen here: https://youtu.be/
wkf-znzWKRc.
I would like to speak today about what exactly happened in the
video we just saw, and why this event was so deeply troubling for me,
even beyond the physical effects of the attack, which do still linger.
my background and role as u.s. correspondent for seven news
I have been a television journalist for 10 years, nearly the whole
time at the Seven Network. I have been living in the United States
serving as the U.S. correspondent for Seven News since January 2017.
Before that, I reported on politics in various bureaus within
Australia, including in Canberra, the capital city. I have reported
from all manner of locations and at all manner of events. My cameraman,
Tim, works freelance for Seven News, as well as for the BBC and the
United Nations. In those jobs, he has traveled around the world to
cover news and shoot footage, including in Mexico, Jordan, Nigeria,
Chad and Ghana. Neither Tim nor I have experienced anything like the
treatment we received from the U.S. Park Police on June 1; never before
have I been physically attacked by law enforcement simply for doing my
job of reporting the news.
As a U.S. correspondent for Seven News, I provide on-camera
dispatches on breaking news stories in this country for Seven's various
television news programs. Oftentimes, I will be patched in live on
video during these programs, doing what we refer to as a ``live
cross.'' Because of the time difference, events that take place in the
evening on the East Coast of the U.S. may end up being seen first thing
in the morning in Australia. Here, when Tim and I were attacked, we
were in the process of delivering a live cross to Seven's daily morning
news show, Sunrise (which is similar to The Today Show or Good Morning
America in this country).
At any given time, Seven is likely to have three U.S.
correspondents reporting from this country, focusing on the major news
of the day and/or stories that would be of interest to Australians. But
the fact is, the U.S. is widely considered Australia's most important
ally. Australians take a keen interest in the political, social and
cultural developments in this country. When there is widespread civil
unrest in the United States, Australians want to know and understand
what's actually happening. I take my job seriously, and believe
strongly in the importance of delivering news from within the U.S., to
my fellow countrymen and -women.
reporting on protests in dc: day 1
When protests erupted throughout the U.S. after the police killing
of George Floyd, Seven's U.S. correspondents traveled around the
country to report from the scene. One of my colleagues reported from
Minnesota; another reported from Los Angeles. Because I was already on
the East Coast reporting on a story in Florida, I was selected to cover
the protests taking place here in the capital city, Washington, DC.
My crew consists only of myself and my cameraman, Tim. Tim and I
arrived in DC separately on Sunday, May 31, around mid-day. We began
reporting almost immediately from Lafayette Square. Having seen the
nature of the protests and police actions from the days before, we were
aware that we would potentially encounter tear gas or other irritants,
so Tim had purchased goggles for us to have on hand. And we each
already had face masks to cover our mouth and nose because of the
pandemic. I had my laminated press credentials issued by the State
Department at hand and occasionally held it up to law enforcement when
I needed to reiterate that we were there as part of the news media.
Usually, this was not necessary since, as can be seen in the videos,
Tim was carrying a large, full-sized television news camera over his
shoulder.
We delivered ``live crosses'' throughout that Sunday evening and
overnight. During that night, I saw and reported on a great deal of
chaos, including destruction of property, fires, and even some looting
of shops. I did not see the fire at St. John's Episcopal Church, but I
did see other structures in and around the park on fire, as well as a
large bonfire in the middle of the street by the park. We were aware
that the DC government had imposed an 11 p.m. curfew. In the hours
leading up to that time, we saw the police occasionally mobilize to
push protesters away from the park, but it was not until after the
curfew went into effect that they cleared the park area completely. As
members of the press, we were exempt from the curfew and so we were
able to move in among the protesters and behind the police line to
capture footage of the scene. By the time I delivered my last few live
crosses early in the morning of Monday, June 1, the police had cleared
the park and protesters had long since dispersed.
Throughout the first night we were there, the tension between the
protesters and police was palpable, and we did see the police use riot
gear and so-called ``less-lethal'' munitions to clear protesters. But
the process was relatively orderly and relaxed, to the extent one could
ever describe a process like that as orderly or relaxed. The efforts to
clear the streets around the park did not kick in until the curfew--in
fact, not until several minutes after the curfew--and the process was
fairly deliberate and methodical.
reporting on protests in dc: day 2--the attack
The next day, in the afternoon on Monday, June 1, Tim and I went
back out to report on the protests. As we left our hotel on 15th
Street, we encountered a large march coming down 14th Street and headed
toward the Capitol Building. We followed the march, and delivered
several live crosses from the demonstration outside the Capitol. The
protests there were certainly passionate, but they were peaceful.
Protesters occasionally chanted slogans directly at the line of police
officers, but I saw no physical altercations. In the late afternoon,
the crowd received an alert on their phones announcing that DC was
imposing a curfew starting at 7 p.m. The crowd began to make their way
to Lafayette Square, and we followed them. We arrived around 5:45 p.m.,
in time to set up for a relatively uneventful ``live cross'' at 6 p.m.
The atmosphere in Lafayette Square was similar to the Capitol. The
crowd was passionate, but peaceful. In fact, the atmosphere was much
less tense than it was the night before, with none of the property
destruction or fires we had seen that night.
We were scheduled to deliver a live cross at 6:30 p.m. for Sunrise.
We were near the Northeast corner of the square, at H Street and
Vermont Avenue, on the sidewalk outside the park. As we were getting
ready for the cross, we saw the police lines suddenly start to form.
These officers were in full riot gear. Some--which we identified by
their uniforms and helmets as U.S. Park Police--carried round, clear
shields on one arm, often using their other hand to swing their batons.
Other officers carried what looked like modified automatic weapons,
which we knew fired ``less-lethal'' projectiles like rubber bullets.
We were aware that the curfew was not set to kick in for another
half hour, so we were confused about what was happening. However, based
on our experience the night before, we were not overly concerned by
police lining up, as we expected the police forces to only begin
clearing the area after curfew.
We did not hear any warning from law enforcement that the area was
going to be cleared, or that the curfew was going to start early.
Nevertheless, right around 6:30, the line of police suddenly surged
forward. We ran a couple hundred feet West on H Street along with the
protesters to position ourselves farther away from the line. The police
began releasing some kind of smoke and irritant gas, and firing what I
thought at the time were rubber bullets. I now understand they may have
been shooting ``pepper balls'' or launching ``stinger'' grenades, which
I understand launch rubber pellets into the surrounding area. Tim was
hit with one of those projectile in the back of the neck during this
surge. The ``TVU''--the piece of electronic equipment that transmits
our video and audio feed back to the studio in Sydney, which Tim
carries in his backpack--was also hit with a projectile or piece of
shrapnel and was knocked offline. (We later realized that the TVU was
seriously damaged in that incident.)
After this first surge, we took cover behind a tree on the
sidewalk, so that we could regroup and try to get our damaged equipment
ready to begin our 6:30 live cross. To our right (looking East) there
was a line of law enforcement, which I believe were National Guard or
some form of military police, with tall, clear riot shields standing in
a line behind a metal barrier along the border of the park. To our
left, the street was filled with confused and angry protesters who
understood that the curfew was not set to begin for another half hour.
We saw the line of police start to advance toward us at a walking
pace. We wanted to stay completely out of the way of both police and
protesters, so we backed up and moved further down the sidewalk.
Eventually we were able to step up onto a raised curb in a small
``alcove'' created by a short concrete wall running perpendicular to
the sidewalk. (I believe it is a wall around a storage shed for the
park.) At that point, we had a good vantage point to capture the scene,
without being in the way of the advancing police line, since we were
sheltered by a concrete wall off of the sidewalk. The line of military
police officers was directly behind us (behind the temporary metal
barriers) and we identified ourselves to them as members of the press.
There were also other members of the press immediately around us along
the fence and on the sidewalk. This still from the local news footage
of the incident shows how we were positioned (and confirms the presence
of other media in that area, since they were able to capture this image
directly).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0718.001
.epsThat is me in the blue backpack, with my back to the camera on
the right side. Tim is to my left in the baseball hat, sitting on the
milk-crate, having just been knocked over by a U.S. Park Police
officer, as I will explain below.
We then began our live cross. As I started explaining the situation
to the in-studio hosts, the line of police suddenly--and again, without
any verbal warning that I could hear--began charging forward at a
sprinting pace. As Tim was capturing the footage of this stampede
(which was knocking protesters onto the ground), a Park Police officer
who was running by on the sidewalk stopped just as he was passing us,
turned toward Tim and rammed him in the chest and stomach with the edge
of his riot shield, causing Tim to keel over and drop down to a sitting
position on a plastic crate behind him. The officer took a half step
back and seemed to pause for a moment, looking at Tim. He then punched
his hand directly into the front of Tim's camera and grabbed the lens,
causing Tim's head to whiplash backward. Tim later told me that this
caused him to ``see stars'' for a moment. As this happened, both Tim
and I were repeatedly shouting ``Media! Media!'' at the top of our
lungs, to make clear what I would have thought was already obvious.
In an instant, a group of four or five Park Police officers
surrounded us, as we continued to shout ``Media!'' I recall
instinctively raising my hands near my face and almost cowering behind
Tim, afraid of what this even larger group of officers would now do to
us. (This can be seen in the still photo just above.) An officer in the
group stood behind the first officer, and placed his arm between the
first officer and us, seemingly trying to restrain him. That second
officer shouted at us to move further down the sidewalk. We immediately
complied. Tim--despite having been knocked down a second earlier--
crouched low and began running down the sidewalk. Even though Tim was
following the officers' instructions, the first officer pushed the face
of his shield against Tim's back to physically prod him forward. I
grabbed hold of Tim's backpack, and followed, also crouching low.
As I was running away, I felt something strike me hard across the
back and shoulders. I now know, from seeing the local news crew's
footage, that a third U.S. Park Police officer reached around the
second officer to smack me with his baton in a backhanded motion as I
was running away. Disturbingly, in the moments before that, as the
other officers surrounded us, this third officer appears to be trying
to push his way into the scrum while waving his baton. Unable to get
``into the mix'' before we started running down the sidewalk, he seemed
to go out of his way to make sure to get at least one hit on us.
Again, this all happened as we were broadcasting live to the news
desk for the morning show in Sydney. The anchors of the show reacted
with shock when they saw the first officer's fist suddenly fill the
frame as he punched Tim's camera. Initially, the studio could not hear
us, because the attack had knocked the receiver for my microphone off
of Tim's camera. As they tried to make sure we were OK, one of the
anchors, Samantha Armytage, observed that the police were not
discriminating between protesters and the media.
After we ran several yards away from the police line, and Tim
reconnected the microphone receiver to the camera, I told the anchors
(and Australian audience, which included my own family) what was
happening:
Yes guys, you heard us yelling there that we were media, but
they don't care. They are being indiscriminate at the moment.
They chased us down that street as you see. They were firing
these rubber bullets at everyone. There's tear gas. Now, we are
really surrounded by the police and you really saw the way that
they dealt with my cameraman Tim there, quite violent. And they
do not care who they're targeting at the moment.
I also explained that the curfew was not set to come into effect
for another 26 minutes, but that the police seemed to be trying to box
the protesters in, which would mean that, after curfew, all of the
protesters present could be subject to arrest.
The news anchors were curious to understand exactly where we were
located, relative to the White House, where President Trump was
scheduled to speak in the Rose Garden at any moment. Tim panned his
camera to the left to show how we were directly across the park from
the front door of the White House at that very moment.
As this was happening, the police lines began advancing again, all
the while firing their weapons and releasing various forms of tear gas
and smoke grenades. We tried to move further West along H Street, but
were squeezed in place with the line of military police to our left,
the U.S. Park Police line advancing behind us, and throngs of
protesters all around us. In many ways, that was the most frightening
part of the experience. We had already been attacked physically and
wanted nothing more than to get clear of the continuing onslaught from
the police. But we kept finding ourselves caught in the bottleneck
created by the Park Police line moving forward so quickly. It felt like
there was no escape.
As we turned to run away from this second wave, I felt a sharp pain
as I was struck with a projectile directly to my legs and backside. In
the video, which was again, still being broadcast live to Australian
morning news audiences, I can be heard shrieking in pain and surprise.
I had assumed at the time that I was hit with a rubber bullet, and said
as much to the camera. Having now seen the wounds caused by actual
rubber bullets on others, I believe I was actually struck by a ``pepper
ball'' projectile. (I have compared the feeling to being hit with a
paintball at very close range.) I received bruises where I was hit that
lasted for several weeks.
Continuing to crouch low, Tim and I pushed our way West as loud
flash grenades boomed around us, gas continued to fill the air (causing
everyone around us to cough violently, which was particularly unnerving
in light of the COVID pandemic), and the police forces kept firing
their ``less-lethal'' guns at the crowd.
Tim and I then ran at a sprinting pace all the way down H Street to
the other side of the park, and turned north on Connecticut Avenue to
try to escape the bottleneck where we had been stuck. Running (and then
speaking on camera) was made all the more difficult by the gas and
smoke that was constantly filling the air.
Barely able to catch my breath, I gave an update to the camera,
explaining that we had gotten out of the main area, after being hit by
(what I thought were) rubber bullets and pepper spray. I told the
audience how ``we were trying to move on, as the police were asking us
to. Obviously, the last thing we ever want is to get in the way. But
there was just no opportunity. As you were moving this way, you're
hitting more and more protesters. And the police were just pushing up
so quickly--'' I then cut myself off to say ``we're gonna keep
moving,'' as I saw that the police line was continuing to advance
further, and explosions continued booming around us. We eventually ran
all the way to Farragut Square, but could only pause for a moment
before I saw the stampede people continue to run toward us, away from
the constantly advancing police line. As I took cover around the corner
of I Street at Farragut Square, I told the studio (now over the phone),
how ``we've done our best to get out of the way. We've now found
ourselves in almost the exact same situation. It's almost impossible to
escape.'' We pushed forward up the square and turned right on K Street,
where we were finally able to catch our breath and assess the damage.
the aftermath
As a result of the attack, the lens assembly on Tim's camera--a
professional grade news camera--was seriously damaged, and would no
longer focus properly. His camera's viewfinder (which had been jammed
into his face) was also damaged. Tim had an additional lens (with a
different focal length) that I was carrying in my backpack.
Unfortunately, that lens took part of the brunt of the baton strike to
my back, and was also damaged. As I mentioned above, the TVU device
that enables us to send our video and audio feed back to Australia
remotely, was also malfunctioning from being jostled and hit with the
projectiles fired by the police forces in the first rush. Repairing and
replacing this equipment will likely cost thousands of dollars. Of
perhaps less significance, but still frustrating, I lost one of my
wireless ``Airpods'' and a pair of sunglasses as we were pushed by the
police.
I have large bruises that lasted for weeks where I was hit with the
``pepper ball'' (or whatever ``less-lethal'' projectile hit me). Both
Tim and I have also experienced persistent aches and soreness from
where we were hit--Tim, from the riot shield hit and camera punch, and
me, from the baton strike. Both Tim and I have consulted with doctors
for treatment for the lingering effects from those attacks.
Despite these injuries and the damage to our equipment, we
continued to report on the protests and police actions throughout the
rest of that night, and over the next 8 days in Washington, DC.
I would be lying if I said I did not feel fear when we went back
out to continue to report on the events in the streets. From the
beginning, we knew we were entering a potentially chaotic situation,
and tried to take precautions. For example, I knew that, if law
enforcement used things like tear gas, we would be caught in the cloud
just like everyone else. That was why we had protective eyewear. What
we never would have expected was that we would be directly assaulted by
multiple police officers when we were not in anyone's way, and were
clearly identifiable as media, peacefully reporting on the events. I
had no way of knowing whether the same thing would happen again as we
continued to try to report on the scene. As I've told others since the
incident, our instinct as journalists covering a dangerous situation
would normally be to run towards the police for safety. But this was
the opposite; here, the police were the ones we feared.
At the same time, I felt an even more solemn obligation to go out
and do my job, to show the Australian people what was actually
happening on the ground in the capital city of its closest ally. In
fact, this incident illustrates perfectly how important it is for
reporters to be on the scene, witnessing and capturing what's happening
directly. The moment when the police began rushing protesters away from
the park was so chaotic and rushed that it would have been impossible
to know what was actually happening if we had been filming from, say, a
couple blocks away. This is something that should be important not only
to protesters and civilians, but to the police as well. I would think
that if the situation were reversed, and it was protesters who attacked
police without provocation, the police would want that reality
documented and reported on.
For that reason, I was shocked to have the U.S. Park Police attack
us so directly, even after they knew we were media. I could possibly
understand the first officer getting caught up in the heat of the
moment, and striking Tim with his riot shield before he realized what
was happening. (Though, I would also hope that police officers are
sufficiently trained so that they know how to more effectively assess a
situation before lashing out with physical force.) However, after he
took a step back and realized that Tim was a cameraman, and we were
shouting ``Media! Media!,'' his reaction was to directly punch the
camera lens. It felt as if he was trying to aggressively convey that we
did not have a right to be there, filming what was happening--even
though we absolutely did. The fact that the third officer struck me
with a baton as I was running away, after it was abundantly clear that
we were media, and were complying with all directives without
hesitation, was all the more disturbing.
I was also, frankly, disturbed to see the police dealing so harshly
with what had been, up to that point, a relatively peaceful protest. I
was, of course, aware of the chaos and destructive behavior by some
individuals the night before. But up until 6:30 on that Monday, we had
not seen any violence or destruction by any of the protesters. At the
time, we were baffled as to why the police were cracking down so
violently on a peaceful protest when the curfew had not even kicked in
yet. Of course, we later learned that the apparent reason for the
police action was to clear the way for the President to walk over to
St. John's church.
During my live cross to Sunrise the next day, one of the hosts,
David Koch, asked if I was angry. Here is what I said at the time:
I'm really disappointed . . .. It's not just about the media
and the fact that we were attacked while we were doing our job.
It's about the fact that that was before curfew. So every
single person that was here had a legal right to be here. And
to see these people tear gassed to make way for a photo
opportunity for the president in front of the White House in
the United States of America is outrageous. This is not the
United States that I know at the moment. This is a police
state. It's martial law. And to see civilians treated like that
was really, really upsetting.
As a reporter, I don't like to make myself the story. I'm there to
witness and report on what I see, without interfering. But I have been
shocked over the past few weeks to see how many reporters in cities
around the country have been attacked, beaten, and arrested, just for
doing their jobs. In fact, my fiancee, who is here with me today, is a
cameraman for Channel 9 News, one of Seven's biggest rivals. He was in
Minneapolis to cover the unrest. On the Saturday night before I was
attacked in Lafayette Square, he was driving in a car with the reporter
he works with, as well as a security consultant. They were stopped by
the police while they were driving after that city's curfew. Although
they had media credentials that permitted them to be out at that time
(since the press was exempt from the curfew), the police pulled their
car over and placed all three under arrest. They sat handcuffed on the
curb for a number of minutes before they were let go. Our experiences
are just two of many that have been happening around the country, some
much more serious than what happened to either of us. As terrifying as
my experience was, I feel grateful that Tim and I were not more
seriously injured, as some of my fellow journalists around the country
have been.
The Australian government and people were horrified to see
journalists treated this way in, of all places, the United States,
which has such a long tradition of protecting the role of the press. As
I've mentioned, the attack on myself and Tim was broadcast live to
hundreds of thousands of Australians eating their breakfasts--including
my family, who were understandably quite worried for my safety. People
at the highest levels of our government expressed shock and outrage.
The Prime Minister called the incident ``troubling,'' and directed
Australia's Ambassador to the United States to seek a full
investigation of the incident. The leader of the opposition party
labeled it a ``completely unacceptable assault.''
Covering protests does carry unavoidable risks, but the media's
role is essential. We don't just have a right to be there, we have an
obligation. As Australian journalists, we are the eyes and the ears of
the people, in this case witnessing civil unrest in the capital of our
most powerful and closest ally. It is crucial to democracy that
journalists be allowed to do their job freely and safely. And that is
certainly something we should expect in the world's greatest democracy.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Chair Grijalva to Ms. Amelia
Brace, U.S. Correspondent, Seven News Australia
Question 1. Did you see the U.S. Park Police, military, or other
law enforcement entity at Lafayette Square on the evening of June 1,
2020 wearing any cameras, either when you were on the scene, or in
footage afterwards? Did you see any other video recording equipment
associated with any of the police or military forces? If so, please
provide details.
Answer. I have no specific memory of seeing law enforcement
officers wearing cameras at the time, nor do I recall seeing any other
video recording equipment associated with any of the police or military
forces. In reviewing the footage of the assault against me and Tim
Myers by U.S. Park Police officers (as captured by local news station
WJLA), I observe that the officer who assaulted Mr. Myers with his riot
shield was wearing what appears to be a body camera. Other U.S. Park
Police officers in the line that moved forward at the same time also
appear to be wearing similar devices on the left sides of their chests.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I now recognize Jonathan Turley,
Professor of Law at George Washington University.
Professor, the time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Mr. Turley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the Committee for the honor of appearing before you
today to talk about the controversy of the clearing of
Lafayette Park.
For roughly 14 years, I was one of the lead counsels in the
World Bank protest litigation that produced the guidelines and
case law currently applied in mass demonstration events like
the one in Lafayette Park. Much of that litigation centered on
the mass arrest of hundreds of individuals in Pershing Park,
which is not far from Lafayette Park, in 2002. I appear today
in the hopes of offering some legal perspective on the
governing standards that apply in these cases, and also the
facts that a court would likely look at in reviewing these
allegations, which are quite serious.
In appearing, I should disclose that I have previously
discussed this matter. I criticized the level of force used to
remove the protesters from the area, and called for a
congressional investigation into the operation.
I also stated that night that I thought the attack on the
Australian journalist appeared entirely unjustified and
unlawful. I continue to hold those opinions, as I discuss in my
written testimony.
My written testimony looks at the motivation, the
authority, and the means used in the operation.
Two points on nomenclature. I referred to the operation as
the ``clearing operation'' to establish the perimeter to create
a fence line. This process appeared to take about 22 to 26
minutes from the timelines that I have reviewed.
But, as this Committee has, in the title of the hearing--as
the Chairman said in his opening statement, we are all
referring to Lafayette Park or Lafayette Square Park.
Obviously, we are not talking about just the park itself. Most
of the activity occurred on H Street, and some of the
protesters were pushed back to, I believe, I street. The Park
Police have argued they were creating this perimeter so they
could establish the fence line. But, obviously, when we talk
about Lafayette Park, as with the title of this hearing, we are
talking about a larger area.
And, by the way, that is an area that I think would warrant
congressional review of how far those protesters were pushed
back, and why.
As to the photo op allegation, that goes to the motivation
behind this operation. I won't dwell on that much. As my
testimony indicates, this may be a case where correlation does
not mean causation. There has been a number of statements and
timelines presented that indicate that the plan to clear the
park, create the fence line was, in fact, proposed 2 days
earlier. It was submitted on Sunday night, I believe. It was
approved in some form on Monday morning. An order went out
around 2.
The National Guard, apparently, was delayed in arriving.
That pushed that operation past 5, and there was a delay in the
fencing material.
So, whether all of that is true or not is exactly why we
need a congressional inquiry, and that is an area that I would
encourage the Committee to look at.
In terms of the order itself, just because there was damage
and there was violence the day before does not mean that an
order is, per se, lawful, or that it was done in a lawful way.
In the World Bank protest litigation and other cases, we
have established guidelines that you must have three audible
warnings that are spaced apart. You must also give ample
opportunity for dispersal. In the World Bank case, we had the
encirclement of everyone in Pershing Park Freedom Plaza. So,
even if they had been given those warnings, which they weren't,
they wouldn't have been able to remove themselves.
In this case, it does appear the three warnings were given,
but that is based on the government's account. And, once again,
that is an issue for you to look at.
It also does appear that protesters could remove themselves
because they weren't encircled. However, if you look at these
films, there was a very rapid approach of the line to the
perimeter line, which is beyond the fence line. That line was
brought back to the fence line later. That rapid pushing
forward is something that is a legitimate question for this
Committee to ask. Was there enough time that it was necessary
to use the level of force that it did?
On the level of force, as my testimony goes through in
detail, courts have largely deferred to an objective,
reasonable officer in determining what force should be used.
This comes out of the Graham case, it is called the Graham
analysis.
I point out that a number of district courts have ruled
recently against the use of tear gas and pepper spray. And as I
say in my testimony, that distinction between tear gas and
pepper spray is really not that essential, because courts tend
to group them together. The important question is, was there a
reasonable use of those devices?
My summary, ultimately, concludes that the order to clear
the park is probably going to be held as lawful, that the
government does have the right to clear the park. Whether the
means used to clear the park were lawful is something that this
Committee and other committees may be able to shed some light
on.
Many courts would express concern over the rapid escalation
of force, particularly in a protest involving police abuse
allegation. And, for that reason, I compliment Congress in
looking into this.
I would be happy to answer any questions on the legal
aspects, should Members have those.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public
Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School
i. introduction
Chairman Grijalva, ranking member Bishop, members of the Committee
on Natural Resources, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law
professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and
Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.\1\ It is an honor to
appear before you today to discuss the controversy over the clearing of
Lafayette Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ I appear today on my own behalf and my views do not reflect
those of my law school, my colleagues, CBS News, the BBC, or the
newspapers for which I write as a columnist. My testimony was written
exclusively by myself, though I received inspired editing assistance
from Nicholas Contarino, Thomas Huff, and Seth Tate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For roughly 14 years, I was one of the lead counsels in the World
Bank protest litigation, which produced guidelines and case law
currently applied in mass demonstration events like the one at
Lafayette Park.\2\ Much of this litigation centered on the mass arrest
of hundreds of protesters in Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza, not far
from Lafayette Park, in 2002. I appear today in the hope that I can
offer a legal perspective on the governing standards that apply to such
cases and the key facts that would determine how a court would likely
review the current controversy. In so appearing, I should disclose that
I have previously discussed this matter. As a long-time free speech
advocate,\3\ I criticized the level of force used to remove the
protesters and called for a congressional investigation into the
purpose, timing, and means of the operation. I also stated that an
attack on Australian journalists appeared unjustified and unlawful. I
continue to hold those opinions and will explain them in more detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There are multiple lawsuits involved in this litigation. See,
e.g., Chang v. United States, 738 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2010);
Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Our Chang case was the
first filed and the last to settle. The long and complex litigation was
only possible due to the commitment of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
and my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz. In the over decade of intense
litigation, over 30 lawyers joined our effort including Jake Kramer,
Dan O'Conner, PJ Meitl, Heather Goldman, Jennifer Mammon, and many
others. They represent the very best of the bar and its commitment to
the public interest.
\3\ I have litigated free speech issues and write regularly in
support of free speech values. My blog, ResIspa
(www.jonathanturley.org), is focused in large part on issues related to
free speech and the free press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards derived from prior cases like Chang and Barham are
important not only for establishing unlawful conduct but also for
enabling litigants to overcome qualified immunity defenses. Qualified
immunity shields Federal officials from damages absent a showing that
(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and
(2) that the right was ``clearly established'' at the time of the
challenged conduct.\4\ The Supreme Court has ``repeatedly told courts .
. . not to define clearly established law at a high level of
generality.\5\ Rather, the qualified immunity doctrine demands a ``more
particularized'' inquiry.\6\ This testimony is an effort at a more
particularized analysis of confirmed facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (citing Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
\5\ Id. at 742.
\6\ Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been called not as a witness or a litigant but as an expert
on the underlying law. I will give you my best assessment of the
various legal claims that have been raised in the aftermath of the
Lafayette operation, including widely reported theories that now appear
to be without sufficient legal or factual foundation. In so doing, we
can hopefully focus on the real issues to come before Congress and the
courts. After briefly discussing the Pershing Park case, I will focus
on the two most important legal questions surrounding the authority to
clear the park and the manner in which it was done. I believe this
investigation and the other ongoing inquiries are important steps to
guarantee both a full record and complete accountability for the
actions on June 1, 2020.
ii. the pershing park litigation
On September 27, 2002, during demonstrations in protest of the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the District of
Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (``MPD''), the United States
Park Police, and other law enforcement personnel carried out a mass
arrest at Pershing Park in Washington, DC. Specifically, police
officers from these agencies encircled Pershing Park and arrested
roughly 400 individuals who were in the Park. Among those arrests were
student journalists and observers who became the first to file against
the MPD, the Park Police, and other agencies and individuals.\7\ The
central figure in this unconstitutional mass arrest was then Assistant
Police Chief Peter Newsham (who is now serving as the Chief of Police)
\8\ and then Chief of Police Charles Ramsey. We specifically included
the Park Police as a defendant in our action based on its critical role
in the encirclement of the area to carry out the ``trap and arrest''
operation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Our clients included but were not limited to RayMing Chang, a
first-year law student at George Washington University who attended the
demonstration as a neutral legal observer affiliated with the National
Lawyers Guild; Young Choi, Leanne Lee, and Christopher Zarconi who
attended the demonstration as student journalists or photojournalists
affiliated with The Hatchet, an independent newspaper at George
Washington University.
\8\ Many of us involved in the World Bank, and civil libertarians,
opposed Newsham's appointment by Mayor Muriel Bowser due to his key
role in one of the most costly and unconstitutional mass arrests in the
history of the city. See Peter Hermann & Ann Marimow, Mayor names Peter
Newsham as District's police chief, The Washington Post (Feb. 23,
2017), https://www. washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/newsham-to-
be-named-dc-police-according-to-officials-familiar-with-the-process/
2017/02/23/a35f882c-d1b6-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html. Newsham's
involvement in the current protest controversies can only be described
as tragically ironic. See Jonathan Turley, What Mayor Bowser will not
state about real history of police abuse, The Hill (June 9, 2020, 9
AM), https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/501772-what-mayor-
bowser-will-not-state-about-real-history-of-police-abuse.
\9\ Jonathan Turley, Un-American Arrests, The Washington Post, Oct.
6, 2002, at B8 (describing the operation as a ``trap and arrest''
tactic).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsham ultimately acknowledged he gave the order to trap and then
arrest hundreds of people, including tourists and journalists, without
affording them any warning or opportunity to disperse. He explained his
decision in the following way: ``[I]t appeared to me that the
demonstrators . . . were continuing to act as an organized group and
would at some point leave the Park to continue their unlawful
demonstrations in the streets. I determined that I should not and would
not allow this to occur.'' He admitted that he declined to give
warnings precisely because he did not want people to escape: ``I was
concerned that if orders were given to clear the Park, the
demonstrators would leave the Park as an organized group, or groups,
and unlawfully take to the streets as they had previously done, thus
exacerbating the situation rather than resolving it.''
Ramsey admitted that he was fully informed of the intent to arrest
everyone in the park. However, despite being present and speaking with
Newsham and others about the operation, he denied giving the order.
Ramsey would only say that he ``supported'' Newsham's decision to
arrest and, at most, gave his ``tacit approval.'' Nonetheless, two
officers came forward at great personal risk and contradicted Ramsey,
insisting that he did give the order. These officers (who were standing
separately and on either side of Ramsey as he spoke with Newsham)
testified that Ramsey ordered Newsham to ``lock those mother****ers
up,'' to ``teach them a lesson'' and ``get them off the street.''
The Park Police, Secret Service, and other police agencies
participated in the mass arrest. Like many, our plaintiffs were held
for over 24 hours. They were hog-tied (wrist being cuffed to their
ankle), despite there being no allegations that they had engaged in
violence or were likely to be violent.
Numerous lawsuits were brought over the mass arrest, ultimately
costing the city millions of dollars in settlements and litigation
costs. A settlement reached with some of those other litigants included
guidelines for future mass demonstration operations based on
litigation. The Chang plaintiffs did not agree to such a settlement at
the time because we felt that there had not been sufficient
accountability for the actions in Pershing Park and we were not
satisfied that the guidelines were sufficiently stringent or
enforceable. One unresolved issue was the loss of key pieces of
evidence in the possession of the District. For example, the ``running
resume,'' which contained a record of orders from top officials, was
never found. District employees also allegedly gave false declarations
and statements to the Court on the existence of different records and
their mysterious loss.
The litigation in all of the World Bank protest cases took roughly
14 years before the Honorable Emmet Sullivan of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. In future mass
demonstration events, the court reaffirmed in all of these cases that
the Park Police, as well as the MPD, could not enclose or otherwise
prevent demonstrators from leaving areas of unlawful gatherings.
Warnings were to be repeated three times with sufficient amplification
and separation to allow both officers and citizens to understand the
order to disperse. Moreover, reasonable exits would be available after
warnings are given. The court further emphasized the need for probable
cause and the ability to identify the individuals who commit illegal
acts before arrests are made.
iii. the lafayette park litigation
Applying these standards and controlling case law to the Lafayette
Park operation can hopefully clarify the legal and policy issues for
Congress in addressing the two most important questions (the clearing
of the Park and the level of force in the operation). There is however
a lingering question about why the clearing of the Park was ordered in
the first place. The motivation for such an operation is relevant but
not necessarily determinative. If the government has the authority to
clear the park, it can usually exercise that authority at its
discretion. There would remain, however, the question of the abuse of
that discretion.
This controversy has long been framed by one overarching narrative
that the park was cleared for a photo op. Shortly after the Park was
cleared, President Donald Trump held a photo op outside of St. John's
Church. It was widely criticized and I joined in that criticism. Even
so, the more salient legal question is whether the park was cleared for
the purpose of holding the photo op, as alleged by many in the media.
The timing of the operation fueled such speculation. The operation
occurred shortly before the 7 p.m. curfew imposed by the city. At 6:29
p.m., Park police and supporting agencies started to move toward the
protest line. At around 6:35 p.m., the first deployment of pepper
bullets or non-lethal devices were reportedly used to push back the
protesters. At 7:02 p.m., President Trump began his walk to the Park
and ultimately to the church. By 7:06 p.m., he was holding a bible in
his photo op and ultimately called over military and civilian leaders,
including Attorney General Barr for pictures.
Given that timeline, it is hardly surprising that people would
believe that there was a relationship between the plan for a photo op
and the park operation shortly before. It appears, however, that the
hundreds of stories claiming that the Park was cleared for the purpose
of the photo op may be an example of how ``correlation does not imply
causation.'' In other words, the fact that two variables occur in close
sequence or association does not mean that one is caused by the other.
I do not, however, believe that the record is complete on this
question. Assuming that the current record is accurate, the original
order to clear the park was not related to the photo op. Yet, there
remains an open question as to whether there was any last-minute
consideration of a delay in the clearing of the park and whether the
photo op was raised as part of such a decision. The D.C. National
Guard's arrival appears to have delayed the operation past 5 p.m. and
it is not known if anyone raised the possibility of waiting until the
following morning for the fence installation given the size of the
crowd in the park. The answer from Attorney General Barr is that he had
no such discussion on the photo op and the Park Police appears to have
also rejected that possibility. Rather, it appears that, once both the
fencing material and the guardsmen were in place, the operation
proceeded as planned. Yet, it is a fact that should be clearly
established.
It should be obvious that the closing of the park for such a
purpose would be as disgraceful as it would be abusive. Indeed, despite
knowing Attorney General Barr for many years and testifying at his
confirmation hearing in the Senate,\10\ I would immediately call for
him to step down if this operation was ordered simply to give President
Trump a photo op in front of the church.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, The Confirmation of
William Pelham Barr As Attorney General of the U.S. Supreme Court, Jan.
16, 2019 (testimony of Professor Jonathan Turley), available at https:/
/www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Turley%20Testimony.pdf.
As the record stands, Attorney General Barr and the Park Police
have repeatedly denied that the plan to clear the park had anything to
do with the photo op.\11\ To the contrary, both assert that the plan
came from the Park Police long before any photo op was contemplated and
Barr has insisted that he was unaware of any such plan by the
President. Acting Park Police Chief Gregory T. Monahan has given a
detailed account supporting the two reasons for the delay: the arrival
of the fencing and the arrival of the personnel needed to clear the
park to install the fencing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Rob Hotakainen, Bernhardt defends Park Police actions, E&E
News (June 8, 2020), https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/
1063352991/search?keyword=park+police.
``Following the violence that continued on May 30th where
officers were hit with bricks and assaulted, the USSS and USPP
had initial discussions regarding adjustments to the collective
posture in Lafayette Park and potentially obtaining fencing. As
violence and destruction continued in Washington, DC, putting
both the public and law enforcement at risk, on Sunday, May 31,
USSS confirmed with USPP that the anti-scale fencing would be
procured and potentially delivered on Monday for installation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
along H Street.
On Monday, June 1, USPP received confirmation from the USSS
that the fencing would be delivered during the day with the
expectation of being installed in the evening. Both agencies
concurred with a plan to clear H Street to prevent a repeat of
the protestors' attacks and destruction that occurred on
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and to create a safe environment
for the fence to be installed. Pedestrians were to be moved
from the immediate area of the 1600 block of H Street to the
following points: H Street & Connecticut Avenue on the west,
16th & I Streets to the north, H St. east of Vermont Avenue to
the east.
The timing of implementing the plan was contingent upon having
enough resources on scene. Given that the majority of law
enforcement personnel did not report until later in the day, a
late afternoon or early evening operation was inevitable.''
That account can be easily investigated by reviewing the records
documenting the delivery of the fencing and the arrival time of
reinforcements.
The underlying violence cited as the reason for the plan can also
be investigated. Aside from video evidence, media accounts, and police
reports, an objective record is also available based on the injuries
recorded on both sides in the Park during the critical period of
Saturday through Monday. The government has claimed over 100 Federal
officers were injured around this time. The Park Police alone has
asserted that ``51 members of the USPP were injured; of those, 11 were
transported to the hospital and released and three were admitted.''
\12\ The government has cited repeated and confirmed incidents of arson
and property destruction in and around Lafayette Park. That would be a
sufficient and lawful reason to close the park, which has been closed
in prior years to protect the park or the White House complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Statement From United States Park Police Acting Chief Gregory
T. Monahan, June 4, 2020, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/
uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan. htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government has also offered a timeline that can be easily
verified. Government officials have stated that the plan was discussed
two days in advance based on ongoing violence in the park.\13\ Barr
said that he personally witnessed such violence in the park and
approved the plan. Barr also said that an order was sent out to all
agencies around 2 p.m. Again, he insists that the no one had discussed
a visit to the church or the Park by the President with him. Various
media organizations have reported sources confirming that the order was
unrelated to the photo op outside of St. John's. Absent new evidence
that all of these individuals and agencies are lying, the timeline of
events would seem to support that the clearing of the Park was not
ordered to make way for the Trump photo op.\14\ Congress should
certainly examine whether these representations are true. The need to
confirm the motivation behind the operation is heightened by the
abridgment of core free speech rights of protesters who assembled to
denounce police abuse. Courts have previously recognized First
Amendment claims in similar circumstances.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Aaron C. Davis, Carol D. Leonnig, Josh Dawsey, & Devlin
Barrett, Officials familiar with Lafayette Square confrontation
challenge Trump administration claim of what drove aggressive expulsion
of protestors, The Washington Post (June 14, 2020), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/officials-challenge-trump-
administration-claim-of-what-drove-aggressiveexpulsion-of-lafayette-
square-protesters/2020/06/14/f2177e1e-acd4-11ea-a9d9-
a81c1a491c52_story.html.
\14\ Dalton Bennett, Sarah Cahlan, Aaron C. Davis & Joyce Lee, The
crackdown before Trump's photo op, The Washington Post (June 14, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-
trump-church-photo-op/?arc404=true.
\15\ See, e.g., Dellums v. Powell, 566 F. 2d 167, 194 (D.C. Cir.
1977) (recognizing a cause of action under the Constitution for the
violation of the First Amendment rights of both individuals
demonstrating at the U.S. Capital and a Congressman addressing the
demonstrators); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987) (finding that a claim against
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who impermissibly curbed
plaintiff's protected speech was properly cognizable as a Bivens-type
action under the First Amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can play a critical role in resolving this question.
However, even assuming that the order to clear the park was unrelated
to the photo op (as it currently appears), it may still have been
unlawful under the standards laid out in the World Bank litigation and
other controlling case law. It is to those questions that I now turn.
A. The Clearing Of Lafayette Park
Any court reviewing the decision to clear Lafayette Park will start
with several established framing elements. First, the demonstration
took place on Federal land near an area (the White House) that is
afforded particularly high levels of security. Second, this was a
demonstration that was proceeding without a permit or permission from
the Federal Government. Third, there was a high level of injuries to
Federal officers and property destruction in the prior 24 hours. Those
facts ordinarily give the government the discretion to order people
from the Federal property at its discretion. The actual dispersal
actions at issue appear to have lasted less than 30 minutes and did not
result in arrests.\16\ On the current record, the order approved Monday
morning to clear the park to install fencing is likely to be viewed as
lawful and within the discretion of the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Reviewing various government and media timelines, it seems to
me that, if (as likely) the warnings were spaced apart by a couple
minutes at a minimum, the time from the movement of the line to the
securing of the park was likely around 25 minutes. However, it seems
unlikely that it was much longer than 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These facts, however, does not give the government carte blanche to
clear the park in any manner that it desires. As stated by the court in
the Pershing Park litigation, Park Police are supposed to give
protesters a minimum of three audible warnings that are both amplified
and spaced apart. This is meant to give protesters notice that they are
in violation of the law and facing arrest. The Park Police must also
give reasonable avenues for the crowd to disperse in accordance with
such instructions. In the World Bank litigation, it was confirmed that
no warnings were given and thus no probable cause was established for
the arrests.\17\ The Court enforced ``the binding authority in this
Circuit,'' established by Dellums v. Powell, that there is a ``
`bright-line rule' that groups with nonviolent or obstruction
individuals may not be arrested as a group `without fair warning or
notice and the opportunity to come into compliance and disperse.' ''
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 573 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
\18\ Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F. Supp. 2d 48, 58 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing
Dellums v. Powell 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).
In this case, no arrests were made but there is still a requirement
for warnings under the guidelines. The Park Police has stated that it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
complied with these guidelines. Here is the official response:
``On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States
Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside
Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 p.m., violent protestors
on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks,
frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also
climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette
Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had
revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers
found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles
hidden along the street.
To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following
established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to
alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse
mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional
personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the
protestors became more combative, continued to throw
projectiles, and attempted to grab officers' weapons, officers
then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. USPP
officers and other assisting law enforcement partners did not
use tear gas or OC Skat Shells to close the area at Lafayette
Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.''
Various media outlets have confirmed hearing one or more warnings
\19\ and some members of the crowd were reportedly moving back.
Moreover, the line of officers did not appear to encircle the
protesters so individuals could disperse. Congress should confirm that
the Park Police used a sufficient amplification system, like the Long
Range Acoustic Device (LRAD),\20\ and that the warnings were
sufficiently clear and spaced apart. If that did occur in Lafayette
Park, a court would likely hold that the park could be cleared so long
as at least three warnings were given and protestors were provided an
opportunity to disperse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Karl Gelles, How police pushed aside protesters
ahead of Trump's controversial church photo, USA Today (June 11, 2020,
1:15 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2020/06/05/george-
floyd-protests-trump-church-photo-curfew-park/3127684001/.
\20\ LRAD is used by the Park Police and is an extremely powerful
system for such warnings. The LRAD 100X unit, for example, is 20-30
decibels louder than typical vehicle-based P.A. systems that were once
commonly used for dispersal orders. See https://genasys.com/
lrad_products/lrad-100x/. The LRAD system has a range that far exceeds
the relatively small space of the Park. However, canceling noise of
protests can defeat even the best system, which is why three warnings
are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Use of Pepper Balls and Other Means in The Operation
If the government is found to have told the truth about providing
warnings and a reasonable opportunity for dispersal, there remains the
question of the means used for the clearing operation. On this point,
there is a factual dispute over the use of what witnesses described as
``tear gas.'' Attorney General Barr has said that he did not give the
order to disperse the crowd but supported the decision made by Park
Police to use dispersal tactics if necessary. He and the Park Police
insisted that no tear gas or ``OC Skat shells'' were used in the
operation as opposed to smoke canisters and pepper balls, though a
spokesman later said that pepper spray has the same effect as tear
gas.\21\ The debate has turned into a debate over the colloquial versus
technical uses of the term ``tear gas,'' which may not be determinative
to our analysis. Officials insist that they did not deploy CN and CS
(or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile products), defined by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention as the ``most common'' forms of tear
gases. The government refers to ``pepper spray'' as a ``riot control
agent.'' One photo purportedly shows a clearly labeled ``Skat Shell
OC.'' \22\ Oleoresin Capsicum refers to an irritant derived from pepper
plants but it has the same effect of what people associate with tear
gas. Congress should be able to confirm if the Park Police has
misrepresented the devices used in the operation. However, the agencies
have continued to maintain, including in communications with Congress,
that no tear gas was used in the operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Rebecca Beitsch, U.S. Park Police Say It Was A Mistake To Say
No Tear Gas Was Used In Lafayette Park, The Hill (June 5, 2020, 3:11
PM), https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/501372-us-park-police-
say-it-was-a-mistake-to-say-no-tear-gas-was-used-in (quoting Park
Police spokesman Sgt. Eduardo Delgado as saying ``I'm not going to say
that pepper balls don't irritate you. I'm not saying it's not a tear
gas, but I'm just saying we use a pepper ball that shoots a powder.'').
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of legal analysis, the technical distinction may
prove less important to the conclusions. Courts often group the use of
tear gas and pepper spray together in court orders. The question is
whether it was lawful to use non-lethal devices ranging from possible
smoke canisters to pepper balls to tear gas. That question is likely to
turn on the far more significant conflict in the accounts of the
violence level in the park. In reviewing video footage, there was
clearly significant violence in the park in the preceding days. On the
day of the operation, some protestors could be seen throwing
projectiles at officers. However, the crowd appeared largely peaceful,
an impression reaffirmed by journalists in the crowd.
Courts tend to defer to law enforcement in circumstances where they
face immediate threats to their safety or the safety of others.\23\ The
Supreme Court has stressed that officers are often ``forced to make
split-second judgments [] in circumstances that are tense, uncertain,
and rapidly evolving.'' \24\ Under a fourth amendment analysis, such
use of force must be shown to be ``objectively unreasonable.'' \25\
Objective unreasonableness is in turn ``judged from the perspective of
a reasonable officer on the scene,'' in light of ``the facts and
circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the
crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the
safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting
arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., Bell v. Irwin, 321 F.3d 637, 640 (7th Cir. 2003)
(''It is easy in retrospect to say that officers should have waited, or
should have used some other maneuver . . . but the fourth amendment
does not require second guessing if a reasonable officer making
decisions under uncertainty and the press of time would have perceived
a need to act.''); Mitchell v. City of Indianapolis, No. 1:18-cv-00232-
SEB-TAB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55274, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2020)
(Under the circumstances, a reasonable officer could have also
reasonably concluded . . . that lesser uses of force, including
physically removing [the suspect], would be both less effective at
securing compliance and more dangerous for the Officers.'').
\24\ Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989).
\25\ Id. at 397.
\26\ Id. at 396.
The Graham analysis has been applied to the use of non-lethal
devices by police. For example, in Fogarty v. Gallegos, the Tenth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit found such use to be unreasonable, noting:
``With respect to the use of pepper balls and tear gas, we
acknowledge that our precedential opinions have not directly
addressed the Fourth Amendment implications of what defendants
call `less lethal' munitions. Nevertheless, a reasonable
officer would have been on notice that the Graham inquiry
applies to the use of these methods just as with any other type
of pain-inflicting compliance technique. We find it persuasive
that, in prior cases, we have assumed that the use of mace and
pepper spray could constitute excessive force.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1161 (10th Cir. 2008).
An important distinction comes into play at this point in the
analysis. In this case, the officers were using the force to disperse a
crowd rather than deter or control an individual. Attorney General Barr
has stated that the Park Police made this decision but that they had
the authority to do so when faced with violent opposition. In videos,
the crowd as a whole appears in flux with some responding to the
dispersal order and others not responding, including a few seen
resisting or obstructing the advancing line of officers.
There are comparatively few cases on the use of pepper spray to
disperse crowds than there are individual cases of alleged excessive
use of force. Some cases support the claim of the journalists in this
case. In reviewing the attack on Amelia Brace and her colleagues at
Seven Network, I cannot see any conceivable justification for the
police conduct. This is not the first such attack on journalists. A
similar case was litigated recently in Quraishi v. St. Charles Cty.,
where police fired rubber bullets and tear gas at Al Jazeera America
journalists reporting on the events in Ferguson on August 13, 2014. The
court ruled that it would obviously be unreasonable for the police to
deploy tear gas against non-violent individuals who are also not
committing a crime.\28\ Likewise, prior cases have distinguished
between people who are agitating and those observing or recording
scenes. In Jones v. City of Minneapolis, the district court granted
summary judgment against plaintiffs' claims of excessive force when the
officers used mace on a crowd because the crowd ``[tried] to restrict
their movement,'' someone throw a ``glass of booze'' in one officer's
face, and the police believed they were responding to an officer in
distress.\29\ However, the court refused to dismiss the claims of a
videographer who was individually assaulted by police.\30\ Courts have
also refused to dismiss cases as categorically barred under immunity
arguments in such cases.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Quraishi v. St. Charles Cty., No. 4:16-CV-1320 NAB, 2019 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 97254, at *1327-28 (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2019).
\29\ Jones v. City of Minneapolis, No. 04-4856 (DWF/AJB), 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 56280, at *10-11 (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2007), aff'd 337 F.
App'x 596 (8th Cir. 2009).
\30\ Id. at *27-28.
\31\ See, e.g., Lamb v. City of Decatur, 947 F. Supp. 1261 (C.D.
Ill. 1996) (rejecting qualified immunity claims under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec.
1983); Nelson v. City of Davis, 2012 WL 2821931 (9th Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the use of pepper spray is subject to a reasonableness
standard based on the totality of the circumstances in a given case,
such as the use of pepper balls fired into crowds.\32\ Courts have
upheld the use of forms of gas or pepper sprays to generally repel or
disperse unruly crowds.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., Buck v. City of Albuquerque, 549 F.3d 1269 (10th
Cir. 2008).
\33\ See, e.g., Dalrymple v. United States, 460 F.3d 1318, 1327-28
(11th Cir. 2006) (``Based on these undisputed findings of fact, we
agree with the district court that [the demonstrator surging toward the
front of the barricade while throwing objects including rocks, bottles,
a stool, and coolers at the agents] justified the use of either pepper
spray or tear gas and was objectively reasonable under the
circumstances.''); Young v. Akal, 985 F. Supp. 2d 785, 803 (W.D. La.
2013) (``Given the crowd's refusal to adhere to the officers' warnings
[over 4 hours], this Court concludes the deputies acted within their
authority to disperse the crowd with tear gas in order to unblock the
streets and remove the hazards to others.'').
There are cases, including some recent holdings, where courts
reject the use of such devices against an entire demonstration as
opposed to individual violent demonstrators. Courts have held that the
proper response to violent individuals is to arrest those individuals
rather than to generally deploy tear gas or other irritants. This is
particularly the case with regard to dispersing crowds engaged in free
speech activities. In Collins v. Jordan, the Ninth Circuit held ``the
proper response to potential and actual violence is for the government
to ensure an adequate police presence, and to arrest those who actually
engage in such conduct, rather than to suppress legitimate First
Amendment conduct as a prophylactic measure.'' \34\ Pepper ball devices
have been specifically flagged as causing added risks in crowded
conditions. In Nelson v. City of Davis, the Ninth Circuit observed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1372 (9th Cir. 1996).
``The dual nature of the pepperball projectile creates
additional risks not present with a strictly projectile object
. . . [n]onetheless, even if considered as a purely projectile
object, the officers in this case were aware that pepperballs
fired from their guns could, as in this instance, cause
substantial harm, and that there was a substantial risk of
hitting individuals in vulnerable areas given the inability to
accurately target their weapons at the distance at which they
fired them . . . [A] reasonable officer would have known that
firing projectiles, including pepperballs, in the direction of
individuals suspected of, at most, minor crimes, who posed no
threat to the officers or others, and who engaged in only
passive resistance, was unreasonable.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867, 885-86 (9th Cir. 2012).
Recently, a Seattle court banned the use of tear gas, despite
evidence from police of ``significant arson events, assaults on
civilians and officers, as well as wide-spread looting and property
destruction.'' \36\ The Court issued the temporary restraining order
even though it acknowledged that ``This, no doubt, poses a serious
threat to officer life and safety.'' The Seattle case notably included
both tear gas and pepper spray within its injunction. The court defined
the scope of the injunction as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Black Lives Matter v. City of Seattle, 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ, 2020
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103346, at *9 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2020).
``(1) any chemical irritant such as and including CS Gas
(``tear gas'') and OC spray (``pepper spray'') and (2) any
projectile such as and including flash-bang grenades, ``pepper
balls,'' ``blast balls,'' rubber bullets, and foam-tip
projectiles. This Order does not preclude individual officers
from taking necessary, reasonable, proportional, and targeted
action to protect against a specific imminent threat of
physical harm to themselves or identifiable others or to
respond to specific acts of violence or destruction of
property. Further, tear gas may be used only if (a) efforts to
subdue a threat by using alternative crowd measures, including
pepper spray, as permitted by this paragraph, have been
exhausted and ineffective and (b) SPD's Chief of Police has
determined that use of tear gas is the only reasonable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
alternative available.''
Likewise, in another recent decision, a Federal district court
rejected the use of tear gas even when police submitted evidence of
``the breaking of the windows of the Justice Center and other
buildings, setting off fireworks, property destruction, looting,
setting fires in the Justice Center and other areas of downtown,
throwing and launching deadly projectiles at the police, and attempting
to dismantle a fence put up to protect the Justice Center.'' \37\ The
court order that ``[Portland Police Bureau] be restricted from using
tear gas or its equivalent except as provided by its own rules
generally.\38\ In addition, tear gas use was limited to situations in
which the lives or safety of the public or the police are at risk,
including the lives and safety of ``those housed at the Justice
Center.'' \39\ It expressly barred the use of ``[t]ear gas . . . to
disperse crowds where there is no or little risk of injury.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Don't Shoot Portland v. City of Portland, No. 3:20-cv-00917-
HZ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100801, at *11-12 (D. Or. June 9, 2020).
\38\ Id. at *13.
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar order was imposed in Denver where the court enjoined the
use of tear gas and pepper spray after seeing videotapes ``in which
officers used pepper-spray on individual demonstrators who appeared to
be standing peacefully, some of whom were speaking to or yelling at
officers, none of whom appeared to be engaging in violence or
destructive behavior.'' \41\ The Court however did allow the use of
tear gas and pepper spray when a senior officer gives such an order
``in response to specific acts of violence or destruction of property
that the command officer has personally witnessed.'' The court
specifically allows for such use ``after an order to disperse is
issued'' and ``[a]ny and all orders to disperse must be followed with
adequate time for the intended audience to comply, and officers must
leave room for safe egress.'' The Park Police has already argued that
such criteria were fulfilled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Abay v. City of Denver, No. 20-cv-01616-RBJ, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 99523, at *3 (D. Colo. June 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Barr has stated that he approved the plan but did
not give specific or ``tactical'' dispersal orders, including the use
of the pepper balls.\42\ The position of the Park Police is that
officers on the scene made these decisions based on specific resistance
and not a general use of non-lethal agents. The Park Police said that
smoke canisters and pepper balls were used when officers reported
protesters grabbing their weapons and throwing projectiles at them. In
other words, the position of the government is likely to be that the
use of the agents was defensive and not offensive in this circumstance.
That is challenged by witnesses and journalists who allege virtually
random use of pepper balls and canisters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Tal Axelrod, Barr says he didn't give `tactical command' to
clear Lafayette protesters, The Hill (June 5, 2020, 10:33 PM), https://
thehill.com/homenews/administration/501448-barr-says-he-didnt-give-
tactical-command-to-clear-lafayette-protester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasonableness of that response is likely to turn on the record
now being created in this and other forums. The government has produced
reports of a high degree of injuries, including hospitalizations, of
Federal officers in this area. It can also show that serious property
damage, including arson, had already taken place just the day before in
the Park. It can also show that property damage has continued with the
defacing and attempted destruction of the iconic Andrew Jackson statue
in Lafayette Park just a few days ago.\43\ The St. John's Church itself
was again vandalized and, reportedly with the support of the church,
was also cordoned off with the same fencing erected around Lafayette
Park to protect it against further damage.\44\ Moreover, there are
statements from the Attorney General and high-ranking Federal officials
that on the day of the clearing, officers were injured and one may have
been hospitalized before the decision to clear the park. The fact is
that the record of law enforcement injuries, arson, and property damage
contradict a claim of entirely peaceful protests on that weekend or
Monday night, including media reports.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Fredrick Kiunkle, Susan, Svrluga, & Justin Jouvenal, Police
thwart attempt by protestors to topple statue of Andrew Jackson near
White House, The Washington Post (June 23, 2020), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-police-and-protesters-
square-off-near-whitehouse/2020/06/22/cec8c88c-b4c7-11ea-a510-
55bf26485c93_story.html. Of course, the Jackson incident cuts both
ways. It shows that these are not purely peaceful demonstrations, but
it also shows that the Federal officers were able to regain control of
the area without the use of the prior level of force. The Park Police
is likely to argue that it did not encounter the same level of
resistance around the Jackson statue.
\44\ Egan Millard, St. John's church in Washington Vandalized
Again, Episcopal News Service (June 23, 2020), https://
www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2020/06/23/st-johns-church-in-washington-
vandalized-again/.
\45\ Marissa J. Lang, Michael E. Miller, Hannah Natanson & Peter
Jamison, Tensions between police and protesters flares in front of the
White House before vandalism and sporadic fires, The Washington Post
(May 31, 2020, 2:32 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-
safety/trump-accuses-dc-mayor-of-refusing-to-help-secret-service-at-
white-house-demonstration-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2020/05/30/
9bb59212-a276-11ea-9590-1858a893bd59_story.html.
A glimpse at the likely government record for trial was supplied by
Department of the Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who has described
the prior two days leading to the clearing of the Park. That includes
violence on the Saturday before the arson at St. John's and other
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
damage on Sunday:
``Beginning on Saturday, May 30, 2020, the USPP were under a
state of siege, and routinely subject to attack by violent
crowds. The incidents are numerous and include USPP officers
having their police cars vandalized; being subject to
bombardment by lighted flares, Molotov cocktails, rocks,
bricks, bottles and other projectiles; and physical assault so
violent that to date over 50 area law enforcement officers have
been injured . . . [to] include[] one USPP officer so violently
attacked that he required emergency surgery.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Letter from David Bernhardt, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of the
Interior, to Rep. Raul Grijalva, Chair, H. Comm. on Nat. Res. (June 5,
2020).
The current record would make it unlikely that the court would
treat these demonstrations as entirely peaceful. However, the real
significance of this information will only be established when we look
at the specific pattern of injuries over the course of the three days
and particularly those occurring on Monday before the decision to order
the operation to move forward with the clearing of the Park.
C. Summary
There are significant and troubling issues to be addressed over the
operation at Lafayette Park. If we are to effectively address those
issues, we need to speak frankly about the record as it stands today,
particularly in terms of how a court might view these facts. First, the
widespread claim that the Park was cleared for the Trump photo op is
currently unsupported and contradicted by the available evidence.
Second, it does not appear that tear gas was employed on protesters,
though it has been confirmed that pepper balls with similar effects
were used. Third, it is not true that the protests in the Lafayette
Park were entirely peaceful. There was extensive property damage,
serious arson crimes, and continuing attacks on Federal law enforcement
on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Finally, it is also true that most of
the protestors in the Park on Monday evening were peaceful. Our
understanding of these facts may of course change as a result of this
and other investigations. Yet, it is important to focus on what we know
and do not know in addressing legal and policy questions going forward.
A court is likely to find that a plan to close off the park
submitted on Sunday night and approved Monday morning was within the
legal discretion of the government. It is also likely to recognize that
there was some exigency in the operation to install the fencing due to
the proximity to the White House. Given that mixed record, a
constitutional challenge to the decision to clear the park is unlikely
to succeed absent new countervailing evidence. A challenge to the use
of pepper balls as a general means for crowd dispersal could be a
closer issue, but might still favor the Park Police absent additional
information on the issues discussed above. From what I can deduce from
video footage and timelines, the actual clearing maneuver (from the
line movement to the establishment of a perimeter line) in the park
lasted less than 30 minutes with no arrests. A court could (as I do)
have objections to the use of the pepper balls and aggressive tactics
but still find that this was within the realm of reasonable discretion
of the officers on the scene.
As this and other committees go forward, I would strongly encourage
an effort to secure some of the information highlighted in this
testimony. This includes, but is not limited to: (1) all emails,
memoranda, and other records of the planning to clear the park,
including any discussion on Monday for delaying the operation to the
following morning; (2) the ``running resume'' or other record of radio
calls and orders given around the Park from Saturday through Monday;
(3) the specific PA system or technology used to convey the three
warnings and any video or audio tapes of the warnings showing their
range and spacing; (4) the equipment record of the exact number of
canisters, pepper ball, and other material used to clear the Park; (5)
the record of all injuries reported and treated in the park for both
law enforcement and non-law enforcement; (6) all property damage and
criminal reports filed on those three days in and around the Park; (7)
all pictures, videotapes, body camera recordings, and other
photographic records on the points of contact between the advancing
line of officers and protests during the clearing operation, including
aerial footages and rooftop surveillance; (8) all reports from officers
and other personnel on the incidents of attacks on or near officers and
executive officials; (9) any memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with
cooperating non-USPP units on the operation and instructions on the
operation, including a full list of all non-USPP forces present in the
park during those three days; and (10) any of the above information or
material held by other cooperating non-USPP units or forces, including
whether the deployment of pepper balls or smoke canisters were the
actions of non-USPP personnel.
Many of us were upset by what happened on June 1, 2020, so it can
be difficult to even acknowledge such likely judicial findings on the
existing record. This is simply what we know now. Yet, what we know
should be enough to focus people of good faith on both the need for
further inquiry and possible reforms. There remains the question of how
the park was cleared and specifically the aggressive response of the
Park Police. We also know that many peaceful protesters and journalists
were placed in an extremely dangerous situation by the use of smoke
canisters and pepper balls to disperse a crowd that already appeared to
be moving back. At a minimum, the rapid advancement of the police line
raises concerns over execution of the order when further delay might
have allowed more people to move out of the area. Few courts would look
kindly on such rapid escalation of force by law enforcement in the
middle of a protest over police abuse.
iv. conclusion
The foregoing legal analysis may help answer whether the government
acted unconstitutionally in either the clearing of Lafayette Park or
the means used to carry out that objective. I will end by again
stressing that such analysis does not answer the equally important
question of whether that decision was the right one. I do not believe
the decision to disperse the crowd that night was right under these
circumstances, notwithstanding the authority to clear to the Park. In
addition to a rapid advancement of the police line, the move before the
curfew only magnified the confusion for the crowd. The police should
have waited until after 7 p.m. to give people a chance to move out of
the park. The fact that the Park does not appear to have been cleared
for a photo op does not validate the decision to move forward that
evening in such a relatively encapsulated period. The government's
claim that they cleared the park when necessary due to the late arrival
of fencing and additional law enforcement officers has not been
contradicted. Yet, it has also not been adequately explained why that
delay did not prompt a decision to delay clearing the park until curfew
or even until the morning so as to avoid direct confrontation with such
a large crowd. The government could have intervened if violence
increased or further property damage occurred that evening. The record
seems to suggest that the operation was simply delayed and immediately
moved forward once resources were in place, without considering the
timing and conditions. Even then, the line might have been able to move
forward without the use of the deployment of the smoke canisters and
pepper balls. As a result, civilians and law enforcement officers have
suffered harm. Having the authority to clear the park does not mean
that such authority was used wisely or correctly.
Various investigations are now occurring in both the legislative
and executive branches into this controversy. Federal cases have been
filed that will also pursue discovery on the underlying decisions made
in Lafayette Park. All of those efforts to get a full record are
essential to guarantee full accountability, which all parties should
favor.
Once again, thank you for the honor of appearing before you to
discuss these important issues. I am happy to answer any questions that
you might have on the underlying legal standards that apply to this
controversy.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Chair Grijalva to Jonathan
Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington
University Law School
Question 1. Your written and oral testimony relied heavily on the
presumed veracity of government assertions regarding the June 1, 2020,
Lafayette Square incident, such as statements describing the reasoning
and timing of the perimeter expansion, the number of officers injured
in the surrounding days (and the nature and cause of those injuries),
and the audibility of the government's alleged warnings to the
protesters. Even the press reports you cite to support some of your
factual assumptions rely on uncorroborated government/law enforcement
claims.
1a. Do you have any objective supporting evidence of any of these
government assertions, and if not, will you amend your assessment of
their veracity, consistent with your calls for investigation of the
actual facts?
Answer. Chairman Grijalva, thank you for your question on my June
29, 2020 testimony.
I do indeed cite factual representations made by both sides in the
controversy over the clearing of the area around Lafayette Park on June
1, 2020. The purpose of those media statements and reports is not to
assume the veracity of either side. Rather, my testimony states that
facts that have been stated in the media as established (like the
decision to clear the area to allow for the Trump photo op in front of
the church) are in fact contested and not established. Rather than
assume that these representations are true, I repeatedly encouraged the
Committee to investigate the allegations and supplied detailed
suggestions on how to obtain information in such a mass demonstration
case. I specifically called for confirming that the plan and order to
clear the area was unrelated to the photo op. Yet, I also stated that
``even assuming that the order to clear the park was unrelated to the
photo op (as it currently appears), it may still have been unlawful
under the standards laid out in the World Bank litigation and other
controlling case law.''
The thrust of the testimony is that Congress (and the media) should
not act on assumed facts, particularly when the government has publicly
stated that those assumptions are incorrect. The truth is not
especially difficult to determine if the Committee wants to do so. The
records that I cite in my testimony will conclusively establish which
side is telling the truth on allegations like the clearing of the area
to allow the photo op. I would be happy to comment on any such evidence
that you acquire in your inquiry but I, again, strongly encourage you
to pursue the documents and evidence referenced in my testimony.
What we know is still limited by the absence of discovery or new
documents. The government has supplied details on when the plan was
created and when it was approved. Those statements can now be fully
confirmed or refuted by this inquiry. Thus, I will repeat what I stated
in my testimony to the Committee:
``Yet, what we know should be enough to focus people of good
faith on both the need for further inquiry and possible
reforms. There remains the question of how the park was cleared
and specifically the aggressive response of the Park Police. We
also know that many peaceful protesters and journalists were
placed in an extremely dangerous situation by the use of smoke
canisters and pepper balls to disperse a crowd that already
appeared to be moving back. At a minimum, the rapid advancement
of the police line raises concerns over execution of the order
when further delay might have allowed more people to move out
of the area. Few courts would look kindly on such rapid
escalation of force by law enforcement in the middle of a
protest over police abuse.''
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your additional
question and I wish to thank the Committee for allowing me to
participate in his important inquiry into the events at Lafayette Park.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And let me now recognize our last witness, the Right
Reverend Mariann Budde, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of
Washington.
Reverend Bishop, the time is yours. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MARIANN BUDDE, BISHOP, EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF
WASHINGTON
Rev. Budde. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
Bishop, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. As you said, my name is Mariann
Budde. I serve as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of
Washington, which counts among its parishes St. John's,
Lafayette Square.
I appear today to express my deep concern about the events
of June 1, when our government resorted to acts of violence
against peaceful protesters, and prevented clergy and lay
members of the church from exercising their ministry on the
grounds of St. John's.
We, in the Episcopal Church, believe that the issues of
racial and social justice are core tenants of the Christian
faith. The Bible teaches that all human beings are created in
the likeness and image of God. As children of God, all are to
be treated with equal dignity and respect.
Embedded in our Nation's history and institutions is the
shameful abuse of Black Americans and other persons of color
justified by the sinful notion of white supremacy, that
whiteness is the human standard from which all other human
beings deviate and are somehow less human, less worthy of equal
treatment. And as Christians, we are called by God to rectify
that injustice. Our faith compels us to join those around the
country and the globe who have engaged in non-violent protest
to call for an end to racist policies and practices, and to say
clearly with one voice that Black Lives Matter.
Now, for Episcopalians, the issue of racial justice is a
shameful part of our history, for we were once the church of
slave holders. And like the White House, St. John's Lafayette
Square was built with enslaved labor. Yet, throughout our
history, our noblest members have fought for the liberation of
the enslaved, full human and civil rights for all people, and
to be a church that welcomes all. We have and continue to
struggle to come to terms with our racist past and legacy and
that of American society as a whole. We strive to be a voice
for peace and the fundamental dignity of all human beings,
knowing that at our most faithful we stand on the side of
justice.
We stand today at this critical moment. When non-violent
protesters began to gather at Lafayette Square, as a church, we
decided to be present, to add our voice to the call for
justice, to stand with and minister to all other peaceful
protesters gathered there. This was, and is, for us an act of
faith.
Our ministry was suddenly and forcefully interrupted by
government officials: first on June 1, when the government
violently cleared protesters and clergy alike from the area
surrounding St. John's; and then, in coming days, when the
government denied us access to the church to conduct a vigil.
These actions and, in particular, the use of violence
against peaceful protesters, were antithetical to the teachings
of the Bible and what we stand for as a church. When our
government announced its intention to use military force
against American citizens in the Rose Garden that day, it
struck me as an escalation of violence that could cause
unnecessary suffering. Then, to see the government carry out
that threat moments later, I was horrified. It was dehumanizing
and in violation of the protesters' rights to be in that space.
Then, when the President held up a Bible outside our
church, as if to claim the mantle of spiritual authority over
what had just transpired, I knew that I had to speak. Nowhere
does the Bible condone the use of violence against the
innocent, especially those who are standing up for justice. It
was a misappropriation of scripture, and a usurpation of our
sacred space.
I raise these issues to call attention to an abuse of power
on the part of our government, which is also at the heart of
the larger struggle for racial justice. While it is true there
have been instances of vandalism at St. John's in recent weeks,
we cannot let those events and others overshadow the
fundamental cause of justice.
People across our Nation are united as never before in
recognizing that the way we police our communities needs to
change. The way we treat people of color in this country needs
to change. Yes, we care deeply about our churches as buildings.
But in the end, buildings can be rebuilt, windows can be
replaced, pillars can be repainted. We can never bring back the
lives that have been lost due to horrific police violence.
These deaths are the true outrage. George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, Elijah McClain, and so many more. I don't want anything
that has happened at St. John's, either before the protests or
in the weeks since, to distract us from that fact. Black lives
matter, and our faith compels us to seek equal justice for all
people.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Reverend Budde follows:]
Prepared Statement of Right Reverend Mariann Budde, Bishop of the
Episcopal Diocese of Washington
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is
Mariann Budde. I serve as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington
and as the spiritual leader of the Episcopal Church in Washington DC,
which counts among its parishes St. John's Episcopal Church in
Lafayette Square. I appear today to express my deep concern about the
events of June 1, 2020, when our government resorted to acts of
violence against peaceful protesters and prevented clergy and lay
members of the Church from exercising their ministry on the St. John's
grounds and in surrounding areas.
We, in the Episcopal Church, believe that the issues of racial and
social justice are core tenets of the Christian faith. The Bible
teaches that all human beings are created in the likeness and image of
God. As children of God, all must be treated with equal dignity and
respect. Embedded in our Nation's history and institutions is the
shameful abuse of Black Americans and other persons of color justified
by the sinful notion of white supremacy--that whiteness is the human
standard from which all other human beings deviate or are deemed less
than human, less worthy of equal treatment as the beloved children of
God that they are. As Christians, we are called by God to rectify that
injustice. Our faith compels us to join the hundreds of thousands of
people across the country and around the globe who have engaged in non-
violent protests to call for an end to racist policies and practices,
and to say clearly, with one voice, that Black Lives Matter.
For Episcopalians, the issue of racial justice is a shameful part
of our history, for we were once the church of slave holders. St.
John's Lafayette Square was built with enslaved labor. Yet, throughout
our history, our noblest members have fought for the liberation and
full inclusion of all people. We have and continue to struggle to come
to terms with our racist past and legacy, and that of American society
as a whole. As we grapple in these times with this complicated history,
we strive to be a voice for peace and the fundamental dignity of all
humans, knowing that, at our most faithful moments, we have stood on
the side of justice.
And so we stand today, at this critical moment. When non-violent
protestors began to gather at Lafayette Square, as a Church, we decided
to establish a presence at St. John's Lafayette Square to add our voice
to the call for justice and to stand with and minister to all other
peaceful protestors gathered there. This was, and is, for us an act of
faith. But our ministry was suddenly and forcefully interrupted by
government officials--first on June 1, when the government violently
cleared protestors and clergy alike from the area surrounding St.
John's Lafayette Square, and then in the coming days, when the
government denied us access to the church to conduct a vigil.
These actions, and in particular the use of violence against
peaceful protesters, were antithetical to the teachings of the Bible
and what we stand for as a Church. When our government announced its
intention to use military force against American citizens in the Rose
Garden that day, it struck me as an escalation of violence that could
cause unnecessary human suffering. Then to see the government carry out
that threat moments later--tear gassing Americans engaged in peaceful
protests--I was horrified. It was dehumanizing, and in violation of the
protestors' right to be in that space. Then, when the President held up
a Bible outside of our church, as if to claim the mantle of spiritual
authority over what just transpired, I knew that I had to speak out.
Nowhere does the Bible condone the use of violence against the
innocent, especially those who are standing up for justice. This was a
misappropriation of scripture, and a usurpation of our sacred space.
I raise these issues to call attention to an abuse of power on the
part of our government. While it is true that there have been instances
of vandalism at St. John's in recent weeks, we will not let these
events and others overshadow the fundamental cause of justice. Never
before in the history of this country have we been so united in
recognizing that the way we police our communities needs to change. The
way we treat people of color in this country needs to change. It would
be unforgivable to allow this moment to slip away because our building
was damaged. We care deeply about our churches--many of which are older
than our Nation itself. But in the end, buildings can be re-built.
Windows can be replaced. Pillars can be re-painted. We can never bring
back the lives that have been lost due to senseless police violence.
George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Elijah McClain. And so many others. Their
deaths are the true outrage, and I don't want anything that has
happened at St. John's--either before the protests or in the weeks
since--to distract us from that fact. Black Lives Matter, and our faith
compels us to seek equal justice for all people.
I look forward to answering your questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you all for the testimony. Let me now
turn to the questions and recognize Mr. Huffman for any
questions he might have.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
so much to the witnesses for a great testimony. I want to begin
by taking issue, respectfully, with the Ranking Member's
mocking of the title of this hearing. The hearing is titled,
``The U.S. Park Police Attack on Peaceful Protesters at
Lafayette Square.'' That is not dramatization; that is fact.
That is exactly what happened.
And if there was a shred of evidence to support the
gaslighting counter-narrative that we have heard from this
Administration, I would think that the gentleman across the
aisle would have called a fact witness to offer that narrative.
We have a very thoughtful explanation of the legal framework
from Professor Turley.
Thank you, Professor, for that. We didn't get any fact
witnesses to support this gaslighting. And I think that speaks
volumes.
Before we get into further questions, I want to express my
disappointment that, at least so far, our friends across the
aisle apparently no longer have the same concern about heavy-
handed police tactics, militarization, and other police abuse
by Department of the Interior agencies, concerns they used to
speak passionately about when Barack Obama was President.
Apparently those concerns disappeared when Donald Trump became
President.
But some of us are old enough to remember the hearings that
the Republican Majority held in 2013 and 2014 entitled--and now
we are talking about those incendiary titles we used to see--
entitled, ``Threats, Intimidation, and Bullying by Federal Land
Managing Agencies.''
And at the time, one of our Republican colleagues
described, and I quote, ``These type of very heavy-handed,
SWAT-like teams with non-DoJ agencies being used as the tip of
the spear for Federal law enforcement,'' he called it ``heavy
handed, intimidating to the American people,'' and said it
threatened the trust that is so important between American
citizens and their government. That was 2014, after an all-
White armed militia gathered to stop Federal land agency law
enforcement from confiscating Cliven Bundy's cattle, which he
had been illegally grazing for 20 years.
Law enforcement backed down because of that heavily armed
militia protesting. But at the time, and then again in 2016,
during the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge in Oregon by a similar group, an angry White, heavily
armed group of protesters, we heard a very different tune about
Federal policing tactics from congressional Republicans.
Some of them introduced legislation to eliminate law
enforcement authorities from the BLM and the Forest Service on
the grounds that these agencies were, ``armed to the teeth.''
They described armed police at Department of the Interior
agencies as, ``dangerous, unnecessary, and sending the wrong
message.''
Some of our Republican colleagues on this Committee were
co-sponsors of that bill. Talk about defund the police.
Republicans in Congress were eager to do exactly that to make
sure that folks like Cliven Bundy could continue breaking the
law with impunity.
Fast forward to the peaceful protests for racial justice at
Lafayette Square. Peaceful, unarmed protesters were met with a
DOI police response far more aggressive, far more militarized,
and far less necessary than anything used against those White
militias in 2014 and 2016.
As our witnesses confirm, as any objective person viewing
the video knows, heavily armed U.S. Park Police carried out
orders to use chemical agents and other forceful means to clear
protesters so that Donald Trump could have a weird photo op
with someone's Bible. Most people would consider this heavy
handed, intimidating, dangerous, unnecessary, sending the wrong
message, all those exact terms that our Republican colleagues
used to describe police tactics against White militias when
they were defending lawbreaking ranchers in 2014 and 2016.
I am disappointed that we don't have the same level of
concern from our colleagues across the aisle. But we haven't
heard from many of them, so maybe we will hear it. It is
important that they not be silent or openly supportive of this
heavy-handed, militarized police abuse directed at Black
people, and those supporting them, who were peacefully
protesting for racial justice.
What is so different about the situation today? The
President, the people protesting, and their cause. For our
witnesses today, please know there are many Members of Congress
and people across this country who stand with you and support
your rights to protest injustice. This should not have happened
to you. And we are committed to exercising our oversight
authority, even if some of our colleagues are now sanguine,
content with their double standard, standing with President
Trump to the bitter end.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes
Mr. McClintock.
Sir, the time is yours.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to
make a distinction between the right to peaceable assembly,
which is sacred and protected under our First Amendment, and
violence, arson, and vandalism, which is not so protected. I
think we have a video of damage done in Washington, DC in the
days leading up to this. I wonder if we could play that.
[Video shown.]
Mr. McClintock. These were the events leading up to the
incident on June 1. The Secretary of the Interior described the
situation they were facing thusly: Beginning on Saturday, May
30, 2020, the U.S. Park Police were under a state of siege, and
routinely subject to attack by violent crowds.
The incidents are numerous, and include U.S. Park Police
officers having their police cars vandalized, being subject to
bombardment by lighted flares, Molotov cocktails, rocks,
bricks, bottles, and other projectiles, and physical assault so
violent that, to date, over 50 area law enforcement officers
have been injured, including one U.S. Park Police officer so
violently attacked that he required emergency surgery.
To describe what happened in Washington, DC as ``mostly
peaceful protests,'' I think, is a lot like describing Scott
Peterson as a ``mostly faithful husband,'' or Al Capone is a
``mostly law abiding businessman.''
Professor Turley, what are the responsibilities of peaceful
protesters when a protest turns violent?
Mr. Turley. Thank you, Congressman. The way that the courts
have addressed this is that they recognize that these protests
are, in fact, the display of a First Amendment right: free
speech. However, the courts have said that areas can be cleared
for unpermitted demonstrations if warnings are given, and they
are not heeded, as long as the demonstrators have an avenue by
which to exit, which actually didn't occur----
Mr. McClintock. Well, let me ask you this. What are the
responsibilities of truly peaceful protesters when an assembly
has been declared unlawful?
Mr. Turley. At that point, when they are asked to leave an
area, they are required by law to leave. And that doesn't go to
the means by which you can move them, but it certainly means
that the order itself to disperse is likely to be held as
lawful. And courts also do allow for that perimeter to be
pushed back if you are assembling something like a fence. How
far that parameter should be established the courts look at.
They often look at--for example, the Park Police often
establish the parameters----
Mr. McClintock. And that would be a legal question to be
examined by the courts. What course of action would you
recommend to Congress?
Mr. Turley. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. McClintock. What recommendation would you make to
Congress?
Mr. Turley. I think that Congress needs to ask a number of
questions. I have listed 10 that are standard questions that
are used in protest cases, including the essential evidence
that we often look at--things like running resumes to determine
what orders were given and when. I encourage Congress to do
that.
They also should take a look--and the court will--at the
level of damage and violence on the other side. The government
has argued that 100 officers in the area had been injured, and
the Park Police say that 50 of their own officers had been
injured. That is a very high level of injury rate for law
enforcement.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me ask the Chairman of the
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank
all the witnesses for attending, taking their time to share
their experiences while they were there.
You know, before I came to Congress and was an elected
official, I worked as a community organizer and also as an
activist in my community. And I know that there is a certain
amount of risk that is always involved when you stand up for
what you believe is right, for protesting, for speaking out.
My question is to each of the panelists. First to Mr.
McDonald.
Why did you feel that it was worth that risk to be at
Lafayette Square that day? And why was it important for you to
be there?
Mr. McDonald. Well, George Floyd was just 46, 47 years old.
I am 39. I will be 40 this year. So, I believe him dying--it
affected my life. So, I just wanted to make sure I was down
there, being a part of a peaceful protest to voice inequity,
injustice in the Department against Black people. I felt it was
my duty to be down there, and I had a chance to be down there.
I never had a chance to be at another protest, ever. So, I took
it upon my duty to go down there and make sure I was protesting
for George Floyd.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Ms. Brace, as a reporter, why did you feel that it was
important for you to be there that day?
Ms. Brace. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is
imperative to democracy that journalists be on the ground.
Journalists can't work remotely. We can't see what is happening
on the front line of an incident if we are standing a block
away. So, in order to fulfill our role in democracy, we have to
be standing right in the middle.
So, I think where we were was incredibly important in terms
of telling the story of what happened that day.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
And, Bishop, while you were not physically present, you
were supportive of people in your diocese who were there, and
you have spoken out here, today, and publicly about it.
Why was it important for them to be there?
And why was it so important for you to speak out?
Rev. Budde. The issues of racial equity and justice are
fundamental to the Christian faith, and they are of primary
importance now in our country, when the inequities,
particularly in policing, have become so blatant.
To be honest, I couldn't have stopped my members from
coming, because they were so determined to add their voice and
their presence to the gathering of non-violent protest.
What we wanted to do, as well, was to acknowledge our
presence, to stand with people, and also to offer whatever we
could to ensure greater safety, providing hand sanitizers,
water, and masks, even, to make sure that whatever we did
contributed to the public good, while we were making our
statement in support of a change in racist practices and
policies.
Dr. Lowenthal. Well, I want to thank all of you for sharing
your stories, why you were there, and your motivations for
being there, all of this, which is protected under the
Constitution. I also have very important questions about the
events for the Administration, and I am very concerned that no
one in the Administration has shown up today to answer the
questions.
But Mr. McDonald, Ms. Brace, Bishop Budde, I want to thank
you for standing up for what is your constitutional right to
stand up for, and for standing up for just what is right and
just today. And I am glad that you spoke out on June 1, and
that you are speaking out today. I really appreciate your
testimony.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and let me turn to
the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I was grateful to see Mr.
Lowenthal by video there. In comments that I was doing, unless
you are trying out for the role of Grizzly Adams, I expect you
to be without a beard when you come back here. Deal?
Dr. Lowenthal. Almost a deal. I will take that----
Mr. Bishop. Whatever, whatever, all right.
Dr. Lowenthal [continuing]. And ask you to grow a beard.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. You would be enthralled with it.
So, look, in light of the statements that were made by Mr.
Lowenthal and Mr. Huffman, as well, even though the
Administration was willing to come and testify, but was not
necessarily allowed in the timeline that the Democrats decided
to do, let me ask at least to put into the record--to give some
element of balance to this.
First, a statement by the Park Police. This is by Chief
Monahan, detailing what he was doing, which includes the fact
that 50 police were injured, and it verifies that there were
three warnings that were issued at that time.
Also, a statement by the National Park Service that goes
into the memorials and statues that have been vandalized in
recent weeks--as of last week, anyway--for the NPS, especially
here in the District of Columbia.
And if I could, I ask unanimous consent to have those
placed in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I also would have appreciated
the questions of Mr. Huffman, but they weren't actually
questions. The two issues that he mentioned that took place
back in the West were dismissed legally because of excesses by
the prosecution of the Park Service at that time--I admit
that--which is the question that we have at hand here, which,
unfortunately, this hearing will not go to, because we do not
have any of the Administration witnesses allowed to be here,
which could answer those.
We do have you, Mr. Turley, and I appreciate your
willingness at short notice to come in here and try to be an
impartial voice, or at least a voice that is set aside from
personal involvement within this particular situation.
Actually, you are the only one that is doing that.
So, let me just go about the concepts of protests. We know
that the First Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to
peaceful assembly. Can you define what that peaceful assembly
would look like, very briefly?
Mr. Turley. Well, peaceful assembly means that you cannot
be stopped from appearing at a demonstration, a protest, a
gathering, and particularly speaking against the government, as
long as you comply with the Federal and State laws. It does not
give you a license to violate laws. It, obviously, doesn't give
you a license to commit arson or any other crime.
It also does not give you license to be in an un-permitted
space if you are given warnings and opportunity to leave. That
is the position of cases like Barham and Chang that I go
through in my testimony.
Mr. Bishop. And what you did is you simply elaborated where
there is a constitutional limit that can be placed on those
particular rights.
Mr. Turley. Well, there are limits on--there are no
absolute rights in the Constitution. And the courts actually
have handed down some really, I think, quite profound opinions
on this. The Supreme Court has talked about how important it is
to give breathing room to free speech and protest, but has also
said that this not an absolute right. This is a right that is
enjoyed within the confines of Federal and State law.
Mr. Bishop. So, I think you did this in your opening
statement, and also in your written testimony. But in, like, 15
seconds or so, can you just re-identify the facts, the
conditions that would legally permit law enforcement to
disperse an assembly like happened on H Street?
Mr. Turley. Right. The park, actually, had been--the day
before, the Park Police had already cleared the immediate park
area. When we talk about Lafayette Park, we are talking about a
larger area now. And the question was can they push forward
that perimeter in order to establish a fence line?
In my view, a court is likely to find that order to be
lawful, because of the degree of property damage, the injuries
to the officers. That order is likely to be upheld. The
question is the means used--was this done properly?
Mr. Bishop. Right, and let me go into that, specifically.
Mr. Turley. Right.
Mr. Bishop. Because there is the allegation floating out
there that this was done for a photo op. I think you mentioned
something in there. Can you make a firm connection between the
actions and the photo op opportunity, or were they things that
just happened to be in a similar time frame?
Mr. Turley. Well, on the current record, this appears to be
a case of correlation without causation. The Attorney General,
the head of the Park Police, and others have said that this
plan was actually approved 48 hours in advance. They presented
evidence that the operation itself was delayed because of the
fencing and reinforcements that were brought forward. And they
have denied knowledge of the photo op when these orders were
given.
Mr. Bishop. You had 3 seconds, and you did that very well.
Thank you, sir. There may be other questions we have for the
record, but my time is up.
Mr. Turley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Let me recognize Mr. Gallego, Chairman of the
Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States. Mr.
Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the record, I
actually have been pepper-sprayed. I have done gas--all for
training in the military, by the way--pepper spray, gas
training, gas mask training numerous times, probably, like,
eight times in my life, as well as I have had rifle control
training with the United States Marine Corps. So, I do have
some experience, both in the uses of batons, formations, as
well as--the most important thing that they also taught us is
de-escalation.
Mr. McDonald, what was your rank when you were in the Navy?
Mr. McDonald. I was a yeoman.
Mr. Gallego. OK. What type of training did you receive, if
any, in terms of dealing with civilian situations?
Mr. McDonald. We didn't really deal with de-escalation.
Mr. Gallego. OK.
Mr. McDonald. This was 1999. We didn't have a----
Mr. Gallego. OK. Well, thank you, sir, for your service,
and thank you for participating in the Black Lives Matter
protests, because it does matter.
Mr. Turley, you talked about a legality of the Park Police
being able to clear the area. Do you have background in the
necessity or the requirement of de-escalation?
Mr. Turley. Well, there is training on de-escalation. My
only background, as I note, is counsel in protest cases.
Mr. Gallego. Yes----
Mr. Turley. I don't have your experience of dealing
directly with things like these chemicals.
But all the departments that I know of, certainly ones I
have encountered, are supposed to be trained in de-escalation.
Mr. Gallego. OK.
Mr. Turley. And that goes to--the area that I think it
would be useful for the Committee to make an inquiry on really
was captured in the video when you see the line move rapidly
forward.
Mr. Gallego. Right.
Mr. Turley. If I was counsel, I would look at that, as to
why the line moved. And also at what point was the last warning
given before the line moved forward at that rapid pace.
Mr. Gallego. I will come back to that.
Ms. Brace, did you hear any warnings?
Ms. Brace. No.
Mr. Gallego. When you were attacked by this police officer,
were you resisting?
Ms. Brace. No.
Mr. Gallego. Was your cameraman resisting?
Ms. Brace. No.
Mr. Gallego. You had your back to them, if I remember, and
you were fleeing.
Ms. Brace. That is correct.
Mr. Gallego. Mr. Turley, as a lawyer, what was that Park
Police officer doing when he was attacking a fleeing protester?
Ms. Brace. As I have said, I think that that attack was
unlawful. From the video, it seems clear to me that any officer
could have seen that the Australian journalists were, in fact,
journalists. They identified themselves correctly as
journalists. I thought I saw media credentials on them. But
also, they knew that there were journalists in the area.
So, this one doesn't strike me as a very close call. This
was----
Mr. Gallego. And I am not trying to be rude, I just want to
make sure I get my questions in.
Mr. Turley. Sure, of course.
Mr. Gallego. Mr. McDonald, did you hear any warning sounds?
Mr. McDonald. No.
Mr. Gallego. Ms. Brace, in the days before that, had you
heard warnings before, while you were in the protest zone?
Ms. Brace. Not that I can recall.
Mr. Gallego. Not--OK. What was the reaction in Australia to
this?
Ms. Brace. There was certainly alarm about what was seen.
As I mentioned, the Australian Government immediately became
involved, contacting the Ambassador here, and calling for an
investigation.
Mr. Gallego. What was the public, though--you know,
Australia is one of the Five Eyes, one of the nations that we
always share our intelligence with, because we trust them so
much, because we have fought and bled with them for almost
every war since World War I. What was the Australian public
thinking when they saw this attack happening?
Ms. Brace. Well, as I said, it played out live to our
audience. There was certainly alarm and concern, which I think
then morphed into outrage, obviously, given that Australia also
puts the freedom of the press at a level of significant
importance.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. One of the things that, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to get hold of is the training manual
for these Park Police officers, because when I was in the
Marine Corps and we did riot control training--I never would
have ever been told to rush forward with your batons swinging.
No. 1, it escalates the situation to the point where you
could create a stampede of people, it is very dangerous.
No. 2, it actually is tactically stupid to do that, because
your lines are exposed. Right? So, the only reason you would
actually move in that manner is for pure intimidation, which is
not the purpose of a deterrent front, which is what you are
trying to do. You are trying to keep people away.
As a matter of fact, the way to have done it is to go down
the line and move slowly and slowly and slowly. That would have
actually allowed the protesters time to understand what is
going on. They would have actually had the opportunity to
escape, like Mr. Turley said, and probably not have made this
all illegal. But there was a purpose to this all, and the
purpose to this all was to show, ``law and order'' for the
President before he came out to hold his photo op with a Bible.
With that, I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Fulcher, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In listening to the
testimony and seeing the video thus far, it appears like there
is no monopoly on blame here. But I would like to just make
absolutely certain that we get the entire story.
I think we have a video that shows some assaults on law
enforcement. If we have that, can we play that, please?
[Video shown.]
Mr. Fulcher. In my remaining time, first of all, I had the
opportunity to travel, work, and be in a lot of nations around
this world, a lot of them where rule of law is not enjoyed.
And, generally speaking, their lack of prosperity reflects
that. That is why this entire situation is so incredibly
troubling to me.
I would like to ask Mr. Turley. As unfortunate as it is,
from a legal perspective can you define what peaceful assembly
looks like? What are the parameters of that? And where does it
cross the line from not being legal?
Mr. Turley. Right. This touches on the earlier question.
Where courts tend to define what constitutes peaceful is often
as a result of determining qualified immunity decisions. That
is, was the officer correct in the use of the level of force in
the case?
And the courts have said that they defer to officers
because of what they--the court--refer to as making split-
second judgments, they are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving. That is how the Supreme Court referred to it, I
believe, in Graham.
So, what the courts look at is whether protesters ignored
orders to disperse, and whether they were obstructive or
violent. And this gets to that critical period, which I think
this Committee is going to have to look at, of that period
after the warnings were given, before the line moved forward,
what were those officers facing. And that is what a court will
do. And a court is going to demand very clear evidence on both
sides to determine whether that could be defined as a peaceful
situation, where this is not warranted, and the police
escalated it, or whether they were responding to a threat to
their safety or the safety of others.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. And then, just quickly,
there is one other thing I would like you to address with us,
if you could.
Assuming we can get some good dialogue, some peaceful
dialogue here, step us through, very quickly, the legal process
for how should we be doing this? If we want to change some of
these monuments, how should we be doing that?
Mr. Turley. Well, first of all, there have been great
suggestions in both houses about police reforms, including
having a national database of the issues that many of us have
raised in the past.
But in terms of this incident, I gave 10 questions that
would be a useful start for this Committee. It would get you
the base information you need, including actual calls made by
officers, the so-called running resume evidence. In a protest
case that is the first thing we ask for, is the running resume.
Also, you have objective sources in the claims of injuries
to law enforcement officers, injuries to protesters. Those
things can be acquired.
The other thing that I encourage you to get at very quickly
is non-U.S. Park Police agencies and their roles. I can tell
you, in terms of evidence, that is the stuff I am most
concerned with. It is the stuff that is most difficult to get.
And you may be able to get a lead on that by asking for what
are called MOUs. And MOUs, these memorandums of understanding,
are often cut with non-Federal agencies or non-Park Police
personnel. Those may give you an indication of who was involved
at that scene.
I can tell you in the Pershing Park case, we started out
with the Park Police, the DC police, the Secret Service, and
ended up with a long list of units that we had no idea were
present.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Cox, the Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, all the
witnesses, for being here today.
I want to say, Reverend Budde, thank you so much for your
statement and your testimony. I think you may have turned a
Catholic into an Episcopalian today, because, I tell you what,
I am certainly here, as we are all, as Members of Congress,
because of my faith, as you said so eloquently, to seek
justice, equal justice, for all people. So, thank you so much
for that.
And I want to apologize on behalf of the Committee if you
were called a vandal, an arsonist, or other pejorative.
Likewise, Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, as well, because you were
there at Lafayette Square on June 1.
And Mr. McDonald, I want to thank you for your service in
the United States Navy. And I am sure when you enlisted, you
took a very similar oath of office that we did when we took the
oath of office to be a Member of Congress to protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States.
And in that first article, where the Congress will make no
law to abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the
right of people to peacefully assemble.
And, if you could, say why you were there that day,
peacefully assembled.
Mr. Cox. I am a Black man. I share the same views of the
Black Lives Matter movement and everyone who was down there.
On June 1, it was a peaceful protest from the minute I got
down there until the minute we were attacked. We were chanting
for injustice. We didn't hear any warnings to move. And I was
there strictly to peacefully protest, for my voice to be heard.
Mr. Cox. You were exercising your rights, your
constitutional rights----
Mr. McDonald. Yes, exactly.
Mr. Cox [continuing]. As a citizen that you had sworn
previously to uphold. You were exercising those. And do you
feel that those were abridged that day?
Mr. McDonald. Can you say that again?
Mr. Cox. Do you feel that those rights were infringed upon
that day?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, most definitely. Absolutely.
Mr. Cox. And, as an objective citizen from another country,
Ms. Brace, is that what you saw, as well?
Ms. Brace. Yes, it is.
Mr. Cox. Professor Turley, I also sit on the Ag. Committee,
and I have been taught that if something looks like a duck and
sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it is probably a
duck.
And the idea that the White House had no idea that day that
the park had to be cleared is beyond the pale. Just all of a
sudden that the President is making his speeches, to do
something right away, and lo and behold, the park gets
cleared--would he have gone out there to have his photo op if
the park hadn't been cleared?
Mr. Turley. What I suggest in my testimony is, first of
all, I do think you need to establish that, and you can
establish that. The account from the Attorney General and
others is that the plan was approved in the morning on Monday.
The order was issued at 2. There was a delay on fencing and
National Guardsmen. All that can be confirmed by this
Committee.
But that doesn't necessarily answer the question as I
raised in my testimony. What I would be more interested in,
unless all those are lies, would be was there any last-minute
discussion as to whether this should be delayed.
In my view, it should have been delayed. It should have
been delayed to the following morning. But it is at that
juncture, that twilight moment, if I was counsel, that is what
I would be looking at.
And also, I would be looking at whether the perimeter size
pushed to I Street was impacted by anyone suggesting the need
for the photo op. All of that should be attainable by the
Committee.
Mr. Cox. And we will look at that. Thank you so much.
And we have seen video from Los Angeles and New York and
Chicago, and video on May 31 and June 26. Is that at all
relevant to the peaceful protest that was going on on June 1?
Mr. Turley. No, I don't think a court would take that into
consideration. A court would consider what happened in
Lafayette Park in the area the day before.
Mr. Cox. How about the day of?
Mr. Turley. No, the day of is the most important criteria.
There is no question the court will be looking at the
conditions----
Mr. Cox. There were painters in the park.
Mr. Turley. Right.
Mr. Cox. There were clergy offering medical support and----
Mr. Turley. Right. The court would be looking at----
Mr. Cox. A kumbaya moment. I think that is a textbook
definition of a peaceful assembly.
Mr. Turley. Yes, I think that the way the court would look
at it is that what happened the day before justified the order
to clear the park and establish the fencing, including the
wider parameter. But then the court, I think, would focus on
what was actually happening at that moment as to whether the
level of force deployed was lawful and reasonable.
And that is where your point, I think, is a salient one,
and that is where I think this Committee could make some real
progress in defining.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. And I do have a couple of other
questions about the secret police, but we will have to get
those on another day. I yield.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Mr. Gohmert, you are
recognized, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the
witnesses being here. Nobody could see the video of George
Floyd being killed and not be very moved. No question about
that.
And I greatly appreciate the Floyd family urging peaceful
protests and not violence. That is not what they wanted for
George's legacy. So, there are important issues that need to be
addressed here.
But Mr. McDonald, thank you for your service in the Navy to
our country. And I see from your statement the ship you were
stationed on. How long were you in the Navy?
Mr. McDonald. Nine months.
Mr. Gohmert. Nine months? Did you run into prejudice in the
Navy, racial prejudice?
Mr. McDonald. No, I did not.
Mr. Gohmert. In your statement, you had mentioned that the
police stopped pushing forward at the urging of protesters when
a man had fallen and was being given aid, and they began using
less lethal force. What was the difference in force before and
after the individual fell?
Mr. McDonald. Are you talking about the Black man that fell
in my statement?
Mr. Gohmert. Yes.
Mr. McDonald. Yes, he fell, and we asked the police to
stop. At that moment they established a perimeter.
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Mr. McDonald. Maybe enough for, like, 6 seconds for us to
get him up and move him. But the minute we moved him, they
started running at us. They didn't stop to help us.
Mr. Gohmert. But what force were they using at that time?
Mr. McDonald. Their batons and their shields.
Mr. Gohmert. Baton and shield?
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. And Ms. Brace, obviously, that had to have
been rather traumatic. Obviously, you and your cameraman came
prepared with the goggles. With your experience you have been
in a lot of protests, apparently around the world. I appreciate
your coverage.
And having looked back just through June 8, apparently just
through June 8, there have been 17 people who have died in
incidents stemming from the unrest from George Floyd's death,
including David Dorn, David McAtee, Chris Beaty, Dorian
Murrell, and Italia Kelly. And, of course, I don't know how
anybody cannot be moved seeing her sister saying she wasn't
shot by the police, it was one of you, it was one of the
protesters.
When protests get out of hand, people get hurt. You are far
more experienced in these type of protests. Is there a point at
which you can tell this is about to turn violent at protests?
Ms. Brace. You can never be certain, obviously. You can
certainly feel, I guess, tension rising in protests.
In saying that, I certainly have never had any reason to
expect violence from the police as working press.
Mr. Gohmert. But when things get crazy at a protest, you
can't be sure. Like seeing those bricks being thrown at the
police recently. If you are a civilian in the way, just like
Italia Kelly, you may be hit by a protester's brick. It has to
be hard to tell.
Ms. Brace. I saw nothing on June 1 that made me feel in any
way alarmed before that line of police surged forward.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. Were you out at the protest the night
that St. John's had a fire started?
Ms. Brace. Yes, the night of May 31.
Mr. Gohmert. Did you see how anybody got into the church to
start the fires?
Ms. Brace. No, I didn't.
Mr. Gohmert. Could you understand why law enforcement might
be concerned about others getting into the church, either
legally or illegally, to cause more damage?
Ms. Brace. I, obviously, can't speak to the motivation of
the police.
But as your colleague, Mr. McClintock, pointed out, there
is an important distinction. I have said in my statement that
the night before I did see much more widespread chaos. But on
the day of June 1, in question at the moment, I did not see
anything that warranted the movement of police that we
witnessed.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
And Bishop Budde, I appreciate your effort at social
justice. What do you think is the hope for those in Washington,
DC protesting?
Rev. Budde. I can't speak for all protesters, but I think
the moniker, Black Lives Matter, is the way we are expressing a
collective cry that we have equity in our policing, that Black
and Brown persons can expect the same level of treatment and
safety when they are encountering police, and that we have a
reckoning in this country for all manner of policies and
practices that would cause Black and Brown people in this
country to fear for their lives when encountering the very
people who are meant to keep them safe.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Bishop.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. There were African-American
ministers that said our hope is in Jesus Christ.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize the
gentlelady from New Mexico, the Chair of the Public Lands
Subcommittee, Ms. Haaland.
You are recognized.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for convening
today's panel. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here
today.
Our colleagues have said it already, but the events of June
1 will no doubt go down as one of the darkest days of this
presidency. And that is saying something for a president who
has put children in cages, protected his friends from
prosecution, and opened our elections to foreign interference.
Attacks on the Constitution aren't new for this President,
but clearing a peaceful demonstration for a photo op with his
cabinet is an unbelievably new low. While we will rightly focus
on those actions of June 1, we cannot lose sight of the larger
moment that we are all in.
Today's hearing is also about a larger trend of systemic
racism, in which militarized police intimidate and kill in
communities of color, while defended from prosecution. The
President's recent actions brought that excessive force to the
fore in a new and unconstitutional way, but this is by no means
an isolated incident.
And while I respect the work Federal civil servants do
every single day, there are times they do things our Nation is
not proud of. In November 2017, the U.S. Park Police murdered
Bijan Ghaisar just over the river in Arlington, while he drove
his car. Still, his family has not had justice.
Earlier this year, in my state of New Mexico, Charles Gage
Lorentz was driving back to his home in Colorado when he was
murdered by a U.S. Park Ranger in one of our national parks. I
spoke to his mother's attorney recently, but I couldn't explain
why that killer still patrolled one of our national parks, and
why he hadn't been brought to justice.
Today, we are here to talk about the President and his
illegal and unconstitutional actions. But we also need to
discuss power, to discuss fear, to discuss unequal treatment
under the law, because we did not choose to live in a society
where the President wields the power of our government to break
up peaceful protests, any more than communities of color across
this Nation choose to live in fear of unequal policing.
Let's try to understand what breakdown of norms led to this
horrible injustice of the clearing of Lafayette Square on June
1. But let's also make sure we keep in mind the culture of
systemic oppression that allows the same fear and power to
control and kill in communities across our country. Because, as
I have stated, this was not an isolated incident.
Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace--and Mr. McDonald, you can go
first, and then Ms. Brace--at any time did you see any Park
Police or law enforcement officers stop or double back to
provide medical assistance or facilitate medical assistance
when somebody was clearly injured?
Mr. McDonald. No. ma'am.
Ms. Brace. No, I did not.
Ms. Haaland. And again, Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, do you
expect law enforcement to provide basic care and/or call
medical assistance when someone is hurt?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, I do.
Ms. Brace. Yes, I do.
Ms. Haaland. And Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, why do you
have that expectation?
[Pause.]
Ms. Haaland. I am sorry?
Mr. McDonald. [Inaudible] public.
Ms. Brace. Again, I would expect the police to protect
civilians and also working media.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much. In fact, part of the
mission of the United States National Park Police is to protect
lives. It is to protect lives. That is part of their mission,
is to protect lives.
I appreciate all of you being here today.
The Right Reverend Mariann, thank you so much for your
calmness, for your heart, and for your leadership in this
troubled time. I appreciate it very much.
And Chairman, I yield.
The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Westerman for your questions,
sir.
Mr. Lamborn, you are recognized.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's see. A couple
of my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have talked about how the Park Police wasn't here to present
any statement or facts. And yet I have been led to believe that
they were constrained from being here because, like Assistant
Chief Monahan said in a letter to you, Mr. Chairman, that to be
on the same panel with a person who is suing them in a case of
active litigation would make him legally constrained and not
able to testify at the same time.
So, I wish you could have structured this hearing today
where that was not an impediment to hearing from the Park
Police. I think that would have been very helpful. And that is
what I ascribe their absence to, is the legal constraints.
And Mr. McDonald, you have filed suit against the
Department of the Interior and other parties, haven't you,
seeking money damages?
Mr. McDonald. One against Trump, a violation of my First
Amendment rights.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, and that includes the Department of the
Interior.
Mr. McDonald. ACLU has a lawsuit I am part of for a
violation of my First Amendment rights.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, I wish you could have
structured things so that we could have heard from all of the
interested parties here today.
Second, I would like to ask unanimous consent to have
inserted into the record a letter from the Fraternal Order of
Police, United States Park Police Labor Committee, dated June
19. This letter was sent to the editor of The Washington Post,
but they have not seen fit to print this letter. But it
explains some things from the perspective of the police on the
Park Police force.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert this in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Lamborn
Fraternal Order of Police
U.S. Park Police Labor Committee
Washington, DC
June 19, 2020
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
The nearly 375 officers of the United States Park Police Labor
Committee welcome any serious investigation into the events at
Lafayette Square on June 1st because we know that every one of our
officers acted with honor and integrity in the face of a very
challenging and dangerous environment.
The Post editorial on June 17th entitled ``The U.S. Park Police's
Reputation is in Tatters'' is unfortunately riddled with unfair
accusations and assumptions. Here are the fundamental facts that we
look forward to sharing with legislators and investigators in the weeks
and months ahead:
One, George Floyd was brutally murdered in Minneapolis. Not a
single officer of the United States Park Police believes otherwise.
Two, protecting the safety and rights of peaceful protesters is at
the very core of our mission. Park Police officers take great pride in
our unique role as front line defenders of First Amendment expression.
Three, while a great majority of the protesters in the area have
been peaceful, during the weekend of May 30-31 the area surrounding
Lafayette Square was infiltrated by dozens of violent anarchists who
took advantage of the protests to destroy property and violently attack
law enforcement. They threw bricks, frozen water bottles, rocks, road
flares, explosives and caustic liquids thereby creating a very
dangerous environment not only for the officers and surrounding
property, but for the protestors themselves.
Four, over that weekend 51 USPP officers required medical treatment
for injuries sustained on duty, including 11 transported to the
hospital and 3 admitted. Incidentally, our officers would like to
publicly thank the many protestors who tried to assist the injured
officers by intervening with those who were launching the projectiles.
In any event, violence was rapidly escalating and, by the night of May
31st, the need to erect fencing around Lafayette Square was painfully
obvious. The tension was intensifying and we were increasingly
concerned about our ability to safeguard against an all-out riot. Our
decades of experience in crowd management led us to conclude that the
installation of fencing would enhance safety for everyone in the area.
Five, USPP officers followed standard crowd control procedures to
enable contractors to safely erect the fence on June 1st. Our mission
was based solely on securing the Square for the anticipated ongoing
protests and, at the same time, limiting violent behavior that had
begun to occur. Our officers were not aware of President Trump's
planned walk through the park until it was already underway.
Six, the installation of the fence worked and erecting it was the
right decision. Protestors have continued to express their views and
the violence has since deescalated. Importantly, since the fence has
been installed there has been a dramatic reduction in injuries
sustained by officers.
Seven, no USPP officer fired CS gas on protestors (peaceful or
otherwise) during the Lafayette Square incident. There may be video
evidence of other agencies doing so, but the allegations that USPP
officers deployed CS gas is patently false.
Finally, USPP officers understand that policies and procedures can
always improve. We will certainly support common sense law enforcement
reform, beginning with enhanced training opportunities for officers.
Our labor committee is committed to working with our agency and Members
of Congress to identify new ways to cultivate the special bond our
officers feel with those who peacefully come to Washington DC for the
purpose of contributing to democracy.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Spencer,
Chairman
U.S. Park Police
______
Mr. Lamborn. And then, third, I would like to talk about
attacks on journalists. I went to journalism school, myself, so
I am not happy to hear about attacks on journalists, whether it
is from police or whether it is from protesters. Journalists
should be able to do their job. I would like to play a video
called ``Assaults on Journalists.''
[Video shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. [Inaudible] protesters is something that
should not be part of a peaceful protest. Ms. Brace?
Ms. Brace. Yes, of course.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Turley?
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. And Mr. McDonald?
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And Mr. Turley, how would incidents like
we saw in the video, where journalists are being attacked by
protesters turned into rioters, affect the legality of a
decision to disperse the protesters?
Mr. Turley. Well, any violence in the area of Lafayette
Square is going to be considered by a court as a part of the
justification for expanding the perimeter, for setting up the
fence, for clearing the area.
There was a high level of violence that was being reported
by the Park Police: 50 officers is a lot of officers to be
injured, I have to tell you, in a protest case. And if it is as
high as 100, that is pretty high. And there was, obviously,
some arson. There was damage to property. I think a court would
conclude that the protests through that 3-day period were not
entirely peaceful, and that law enforcement was facing threats.
Now, as the Member earlier alluded to, the court, in
looking at the means used to push back the line will look
specifically at the level of violence at that time. So, I think
the court is going to consider both, the whole context, in
other words, of the----
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, my time is up.
Mr. Chairman, could I also insert into the record with
unanimous consent the letter dated June 24 to you from the
Department of the Interior explaining Mr. Monahan's ability to
testify or not.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Lamborn
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Washington, DC
June 24, 2020
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
Thank you for the invitation to testify before your Committee at an
oversight hearing regarding the June 1, 2020, interactions between
protesters and law enforcement at Lafayette Square Park. Your
invitation has been extended to the Assistant Chief of the United
States Park Police, Gregory T. Monahan.
Assistant Chief Monahan would like to accept your request to appear
before the Committee to present the facts that occurred on the ground
that evening. However, because of the ongoing protests and accompanying
violence and destruction of memorials and monuments by some
individuals, the United States Park Police must currently continue in
its highest operational status. As you are aware, just two nights ago
another ``peaceful protest'' led to more violence and destruction in
the park.
For this reason, Assistant Chief Monahan offers to appear before
your Committee after these activities and actions have subsided. At
this point, we suggest mid- to late July.
We expect, for this potential hearing, as we would for any hearing
involving Departmental personnel, that the Committee adhere to the
long-recognized principle of seating executive branch witnesses on
their own panel, both as a matter of respect for a co-equal branch of
government and recognizing the sensitive nature of law enforcement
matters being discussed.
In addition, as Assistant Chief Monahan has been named as a party
in certain lawsuits pertaining to the lawful performance of his
official duties on June 1, 2020, there are legal interests which will
necessarily frame the discussion of the events of that day. This
discussion would be further constrained, if not completely circumvented
in its entirety, were an adverse party to such a lawsuit also asked to
testify at that same hearing.
We look forward to working with the Committee on this issue.
Sincerely,
Cole Rojewski, Director,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
______
The Chairman. Let me now recognize Mrs. Napolitano for her
questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question
for Ms. Brace. Ms. Brace, did you have a lanyard with media in
big words, identifying you as media?
The Chairman. We couldn't hear the question.
Ms. Brace. I'm sorry, could you please repeat that
question?
Mrs. Napolitano. Did you have an identification in the
front, with a lanyard identifying you as media?
Ms. Brace. No, we don't like to wear press passes around
our necks for safety reasons.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Did you hear them use a bullhorn to
disperse people at all?
Ms. Brace. No, I did not.
Mrs. Napolitano. Reverend Budde, the square is very
adjacent to your church. Am I correct?
Rev. Budde. That is correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. Have you ever seen that entire area
forcibly cleared like it was on June 1?
Rev. Budde. No, I have not.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you have any idea why your church was
chosen to focus on racial injustice in particular?
Rev. Budde. My sense is that St. John's Lafayette Square
has been a place of protest, historically, in the Nation's
Capital for many years, due to its proximity to the White
House, and that public space of the actual park where people
have been allowed to peaceably protest.
Mrs. Napolitano. Your church has decided to champion racial
injustice. Why do you feel this is important to the people? Is
it because of the proximity to the White House?
Rev. Budde. Well, we took advantage of the proximity of the
White House to add our voice to the protest that was gathered
there. All of our congregations across the city and, indeed,
the entire diocese are committed to racial justice in their
own----
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I commend you for that, because it
is very important. All lives matter. It is just important that
we recognize that the injustices to all people of color have
been going on for many generations, and nothing is going to
stop it until the word and the change come from the top. And,
apparently, we don't have the will at the top to do that.
And then, as President Trump stood for his photo op in
front of your church holding his Bible, and was about to open
and read from it, what went through your mind when you saw
that?
Rev. Budde. As I have said before, I was outraged. And I
felt that it was a misuse of both the space and the Bible for
him to claim in that moment--having just said what was said in
the Rose Garden and witnessed what we witnessed in the park, I
felt as if he was putting on a mantle of spiritual authority to
justify those actions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Has he issued any memo or any letter, any
phone call to you, apologizing?
Rev. Budde. No.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is important for us to recognize that
this isn't the first time, and probably not the last time, we
will have injustices toward people of color. What do you think
the government must do to anybody to start the motion to
rectify those officers at the top level for a change in
attempting to deal with racial issues?
Rev. Budde. Thank you for asking. It is not my expertise to
weigh in on how the policy should be changed. But at the very
minimum, there should be equity and responsibility for illegal
actions, no matter who is at fault, and that our Black and
Brown fellow citizens should be able to feel the same degree of
security and safety that White Americans feel when encountering
police.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Brace?
Ms. Brace. Again, I don't presume to come here to tell the
American people how to run their police force or the
government, but I would expect for peaceful protesters to be
allowed to peacefully protest, and for the media to be able to
safely cover such events.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. McDonald. I think the bottom line is just respect the
Constitution and how it was drafted up. I think we wouldn't
have a problem with overall policing. I am here to talk about
what happened June 1. If they had just honored our rights to
peacefully protest and freedom of assembly, we wouldn't have
any issue at all.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you all for testifying, and I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me recognize Mr.
Westerman. Sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. I can say that I heard your
personal testimony. It angers me to think what happened to you,
and your firsthand account of the things that went on. And part
of the function of oversight is to make sure that the law is
being carried out, that justice is administered, and, if it is
not, that we rectify that. So, it is important to have
oversight hearings like this.
Also, I realize that your firsthand accounts were bits and
pieces of a bigger story. And I think that there is more for us
to learn that we can't learn from the meeting here today. And I
think there are voices that aren't being heard, and we need to
hear all voices and find out where the real problems are.
I have a letter here from the Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association. It says, ``While otherwise peaceful
protests were co-opted by radical groups focused on destruction
versus dialogue, Federal law enforcement officers were thrust
into roles of protecting and preserving the safety of not only
city streets, but also our Nation's monuments, and our history
that we all hold dear.''
They went on to further say, ``No clearer was that role
than here in Washington, DC, where Lafayette Park was besieged
by radical and violent groups of individuals. These are the
same individuals that set fire to and vandalized St. John's
Church, attacked and vandalized monuments in and around our
Nation's Capital, including the World War II memorial, a
tribute to an entire generation of Americans that kept our
world free, and then attacked the very law enforcement officers
that were originally sent there to monitor and ensure the
safety of the individuals peacefully assembled.''
Much of this work fell to the officers of the U.S. Park
Police. These brave men and women came under daily, almost
hourly attacks from unpeaceful and violent rioters, and were
constantly pelted with frozen bottles of urine, fireworks,
bricks, stones, street pavers, and all manner of other unknown
substances. Other Federal law enforcement officers, including
the uniformed division of the Secret Service, various DoJ
entities, and officers from the Metropolitan Police Department
joined the U.S. Park Police at times to try to quell the
violence, stop the destruction, and allow the voices of the
peaceful protesters to be heard.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this to the record.
Mr. Lamborn referred to a letter, or an Op Ed from the
Fraternal Order of Police that was denied publishing in The
Washington Post to counter an article that the Post put out.
And they said here that over the weekend 51 U.S. Park Police
officers required medical treatment for injuries sustained on
duty. And it goes on and on.
What I am saying is there is another side of this story,
and we need to hear all of that. And there is an investigation
being taken on by internal affairs at the Park Police, and also
by the Inspector General at the Department of the Interior. I
wish we could have waited until we had that evidence, and we
could get more witnesses here to be heard.
That being said, I have no reason to doubt what you are
saying. And I think we have to take an open look at these
things, going forward.
Mr. Turley, if indeed those members of the Park Police were
injured, transported to hospital, all these things going on, in
your opinion was it legal for the Park Police to clear
Lafayette Park?
Mr. Turley. I think a court would likely say that it was a
lawful order to clear the park. As I say in my testimony, they
had all the elements, particularly if they gave the three
warnings and an opportunity to disperse. That doesn't answer
the secondary question of the level or means used.
I also have to say that when I saw the figures of the 50
injured Park Police officers, the claim of 100 injured Federal
officers, I was quite surprised. That is a very high number of
injuries. So, I think a court would probably approach this
question--without saying that this was an entirely peaceful
protest--to the contrary, I think the court would recognize
that there were security issues that were valid for the
Administration. I think the court would likely say that the
original order was lawful, and then would focus in, as I talked
about, on that critical period. And what concerns me the most
is that critical----
Mr. Westerman. I am going to have to move on here.
So, finally, we talk about the Christian thing to do,
certainly to work for justice and equality. I believe that and
try to practice what the Bible teaches. But it also talks about
being in subjection to governing authorities. Paul said that.
Peter said to commit yourself, for the Lord's sake, to every
human institution. Even Jesus, when he was prodded to rebel
against the government, said, ``Render unto Caesar what is
Caesar's.''
And I would just like to ask the Bishop, do you believe
that it is a Christian's duty, when working for justice and
equality, to follow the law, and submit to those in authority,
and condemn violence and unlawful acts, such as rioting and
arson?
Rev. Budde. I absolutely believe that it is necessary to
condemn violence and arson. But I also would take issue at an
interpretation of scripture that does not include the long
legacy of the struggle for liberation and freedom, and the
opportunity, when given time and time again, the scripture
tells us that we must obey the laws of God and not the laws of
men, especially when they are unjust.
So, particularly in a democracy, we have a fundamental
responsibility to ensure that the laws are just, and that they
are justly enforced by those who are entrusted with the sacred
responsibility of overseeing the governance of our people.
Mr. Westerman. Are you saying laws against violence and
arson are unjust?
Rev. Budde. I am not.
Mr. Westerman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize Mr.
Levin for his comments, questions.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair Grijalva, and thank you to
today's witnesses.
In particular, I want to thank you, Bishop Budde, for your
testimony. My family attends St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in
San Juan Capistrano, California. So, it is very meaningful to
have you here today.
Chair Grijalva, I would like to ask for unanimous consent
to enter into the record a Washington Post article contributed
by Reverend Gini Gerbasi, Director at St. John's Episcopal
Church in Georgetown.
Bishop Budde, as you know, Reverend Gerbasi was at St.
John's Church in Lafayette Square the evening of June 1. Her
description of the scene is powerful. As she wrote, she got to
the church around 4 p.m. that day to, as she puts it, offer
peaceful and prayerful support to the protesters. She describes
the scene as upbeat and peaceful. She wrote, ``My colleagues
and I passed out water and snacks. People exchanged prayers and
elbow bumps. Things were so calm that, by 6 p.m., most of my
colleagues had left.''
Bishop Budde, do you have any reason to believe that
Reverend Gerbasi was not being truthful in her description?
Rev. Budde. Absolutely none.
Mr. Levin. Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, does this
description generally align with the scene you saw, as well?
Ms. Brace. Yes, it does.
Mr. Levin. Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, did any of the
videos my Republican colleagues played look like the scene at
Lafayette Square on June 1 before police attacked?
Mr. McDonald. No, it did not.
Ms. Brace. No, they did not.
Mr. Levin. In fact, as Reverend Gerbasi writes on, ``We see
that the scene of peace and camaraderie dramatically changes
around 6:15 p.m., as the officers move from Lafayette Park into
the street.'' After hearing the first loud bang of a flash
grenade, she describes, and I quote--``yelling and panic.'' And
then she says, and I quote--``I couldn't believe my eyes. A
wall of police, full riot gear, was physically pushing people
off the St. John's patio, maybe 15 feet away from me.''
So, we have a firsthand account of U.S. Park Police
answering peaceful protests with brutality, which was the
subject of the protests to begin with.
Bishop Budde, when you heard that Reverend Gerbasi and her
colleagues were being physically pushed off St. John's patio,
what went through your mind?
Rev. Budde. I was stunned and horrified and concerned for
their safety and the safety of all of those who were gathered.
And like others who have expressed their civic response, I was
outraged that the Park Police and others were acting in that
manner----
Mr. Levin. Reverend Gerbasi went on and described President
Trump's photo op with the Bible. She called it, and I quote,
``sacrilege.'' Would you agree with that statement?
Rev. Budde. I have thought about that. And yes, I would,
because it was taking something sacred and misapplying its
message to justify something that was violent and that was
abusive, an abuse of power. And there is nothing in the
scriptures that will condone that behavior.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Bishop.
Ms. Brace, I would like to turn to you. Thank you for your
testimony. And, as you note, the video of you and your
cameraman being violently attacked speaks louder than words.
Since being sworn into office and taking his oath to
protect the Constitution of the United States, this President
has repeatedly attacked the free press, calling the media,
``The enemy of the people,'' limiting access to his press
conferences, filing libel lawsuits, and sending cease and
desist letters about news stories he doesn't like. The list
goes on and on.
On June 1, Park Police violently attacked you and your
cameraman, as we saw, despite you clearly identifying
yourselves as members of the press and having news-gathering
equipment. Do you believe that the President's rhetoric and
actions toward the free press has impacted the way the media
has been treated by law enforcement?
Ms. Brace. I can't speak to the motivation of members of
law enforcement here in the United States. I can certainly say
that there has been a noticeable trend in the treatment of the
media by members of the police force, both the example of
myself and Tim--my fiance was working in Minneapolis as a
member of the credentialed press, and he was arrested while
working legally. And we have seen a number of other instances
across the country where the press has been targeted, even
during these protests, by members of the police.
So, while I can't say why that is happening, it is
certainly what I see as a trend. And that is very worrying for
a free press.
Mr. Levin. And do you believe this will have lasting
impacts on journalism in the United States and abroad?
Ms. Brace. I think anything that deters journalists from
being able to do their job safely could deter people from
becoming journalists, or doing their jobs without fear or
favor, which is exactly what we are meant to be doing.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Brace. In the words of my friend,
the late Elijah Cummings, we are better than this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
The Chairman. Let me recognize the gentlelady from Puerto
Rico, Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
The time is yours.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to yield my time.
The Chairman. To whom?
Mr. Bishop. Who did she yield to, me? OK. Thank you, I
appreciate that.
I appreciate this. And Mr. Lacy, you notice what I am
doing. This is specifically for you. Oh, good. But it is
specifically for you. If you can find a Cardinal one, you can
do that.
I just have two quick questions to ask. As I was sitting
here listening to the testimony, I started reading, Ms. Brace,
some of your testimony here in which you simply said, having
seen the nature of the protests on May 31, you and your
cameraman purchased protective equipment--eyewear,
specifically. Is that accurate? Was that for one specific
instance, or was it for a series of events, or was it simply a
trend that you saw?
Ms. Brace. We purchased our eyewear on May 31, so before we
were covering the protests that day.
Mr. Bishop. Was it for a specific incident or a trend?
Ms. Brace. I would say it is because of what we had seen in
Minneapolis earlier in the week.
Mr. Bishop. I will accept that as trend, then.
Can I then ask one other question? Because I found it
interesting when Ms. Napolitano asked you--and she is no longer
here, but--if you were wearing a lanyard, and you said no. Did
you indeed say that you don't want to identify yourself as
media, for fear of protection?
Ms. Brace. No, I did not say that.
Mr. Bishop. What did you actually say to her? Why did you
not emphasize yourself or identify yourself as media with a
lanyard or something? What did you actually tell her?
Ms. Brace. I did have my State Department press
identification. I don't like to wear it around my neck for
safety reasons.
Mr. Bishop. For safety.
Ms. Brace. It is something that can be pulled in a protest.
Mr. Bishop. All right. That is--I am sorry, that was just
interesting and fascinating to me.
Mr. Turley, I have one last thing to ask you at the same
time. I was looking more at the stuff that we put into the
record from the Interior Department.
According to the Department, the LRAD that was used by the
Park Service is a 100X model. Hopefully it means something to
you, it doesn't mean anything to me. But it means it is 20 to
30 decibels louder than a typical bullhorn or vehicle-based PA
system. So, the model that was used has a maximum range of
about 2,000 feet, with a peak output of 140 decibels. Compare
that with a jet engine that produces 140 decibels at 100 feet,
produces 140 decibels. So, that is the size of it.
The Department informed the Committee staff that the script
read as follows. ``This is Major Mark Adamchik with the United
States Park Police. For safety and security reasons, Lafayette
Park and H Street are closed to pedestrians. You are ordered to
depart the area immediately. This your first warning.'' And
they said that there were two more warnings like this one
given. The last one said this was a final warning.
According to the legal standards that you have been talking
about, is that warning sufficient to satisfy the warning
requirements of law before dispersing demonstrators like they
did on June 1?
Mr. Turley. It is sufficient. And, in fact, in my testimony
I suggested that the LRAD may have been used. I noted in the
testimony that the Park Police has the LRED system. It is a
huge improvement over prior years, where they would use the PA
systems off of patrol cars. This has a much broader range by
magnitude of dozens, in terms of the penetration of that
system.
It doesn't mean that you can't have canceling noise in a
protest. Basically, if you have objects around you. But that is
the gold standard for amplification in these types of
situations.
Mr. Bishop. So, it is much easier to hear than simply a
bullhorn would have been. And then one of the questions you
need to ask----
Mr. Turley. Yes, that is the recommended system for many
civil libertarians. It is a system that has a very significant
penetration range.
Now, that doesn't mean, once again, you don't have
circumstances where--I entirely understand--where people might
not have heard it. You could have people around you, they could
be screaming in your ear. Those are canceling noises. But this
really is the gold standard, in terms of the use of
application.
Mr. Bishop. All right, and I have 30 seconds for this one.
If someone heard a statement from a policeman saying, ``Move,
move,'' is that the kind of legal qualification that would be
used?
Mr. Turley. When an officer tells you to move back,
particularly after these warnings, you are expected to comply.
Mr. Bishop. All right. So, if somebody in their written
testimony were to say they heard the officers say, ``Move,
move,'' that would be the legal justification and the
expectation, the lawful citizen, they would then move.
Mr. Turley. Yes, you are expected to follow the orders of
the officers, particularly after the issuance of those
warnings.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady from Puerto
Rico for yielding. I hope things are going well for you down
there.
Mr. Grijalva, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Neguse, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for this Committee
and this Congress to effectively fulfill our oversight duties,
we absolutely must have a detailed understanding of the events
that unfolded earlier this month. So, I thank each of the
witnesses for appearing today and for your testimony.
I want to ask a question of Ms. Brace. I wonder if you
could share what your reaction was when you heard that the U.S.
Park Police Acting Chief stated that the, ``U.S. PP officers
and other assisting law enforcement partners did not use tear
gas or OC Skat Shells to close the area at Lafayette Park,''
despite your experience being the opposite?
Ms. Brace. Well, I am not an expert in ballistics, or the
use of gas, particularly what was used. But I am certain that
there was a chemical irritant used, and I was certainly hit by
some sort of non-lethal projectile. So, that is completely
opposite of my experience.
Mr. Neguse. Do you have any concerns that if journalists
and others who were there had not, rather, shared photos of
empty OC and CS canisters and videos of what had occurred, that
we may not have known the truth?
Ms. Brace. In that instance I guess we would be relying on
firsthand accounts. Also in our recording, our video, you can
hear the use of automatic weapons, which again goes to what I
was saying.
Mr. Neguse. Well, it certainly underscores why a hearing
like this is so important, and why it is important to hear from
folks who have firsthand accounts as to what happened late last
month.
I also want to register my displeasure with the lack of a
witness from the executive branch testifying before our
Committee today.
With much respect to my friend, my good friend from
Colorado, I did read the letter that was sent to Chairman
Grijalva from the Department of the Interior dated June 24,
2020, and I think it is important to clarify for the record.
While this letter does intimate an expectation that the
executive branch witness would be provided a separate panel,
that is not the reason for the declination of appearing to
testify before this Committee.
Ostensibly, what they purport as a justification for
declining to appear before this Committee is timing, that they
are too busy, and that they will, therefore, consider appearing
later in the month, in mid or late July.
So, I guess I wonder whether the panelists have any
thoughts. Professor Turley, do you think it is reasonable for
this Committee to expect to be able to hear from the Assistant
Chief, or another relevant witness from the executive branch?
Mr. Turley. Absolutely. I think this Committee should
ascertain a number of the facts that I pointed out, which will
be the first facts that the courts isolate. There are a number
of these facts which will be determinative in any review of
this conduct, and that includes what was used at the scene.
You know, this became a sort of colloquial versus technical
debate as to what constitutes tear gas. If the Park Police's
later statement was correct, the impact on an individual is
going to be much the same. It is an irritant. And courts have
often grouped them together as to when you can use this.
I personally believe that, as this Committee drills down,
it is going to find itself more and more focused on that
twilight period when you see that charge. That is a charge.
That is a line charging. And the question is was that warranted
in that circumstance.
Mr. Neguse. I agree with you, Professor Turley, with
respect to the need for this Committee to engage in that
inquiry. And I must confess, I am less than optimistic that we
will have as much success as perhaps the judicial system will,
in terms of potentially deposing some of these Administration
witnesses, because the track record of the 116th Congress, in
terms of its ability to get executive branch witnesses to
appear before the Congress, is less than stellar, with a
Secretary of Defense who is refusing to appear before the Armed
Services Committee to talk about this particular set of issues,
with a Secretary of State who declines to appear before the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Of course, you may remember we have had an exchange
previously, 8, 9, some-odd months ago before the Judiciary
Committee during the impeachment process about obstruction of
Congress, and the lack of any ability to, again, get these
witnesses before the legislative branch.
So, I fear--I must say, because, as I read this letter, it
is part and parcel to this pattern that this Administration has
pursued relentlessly since the days that I was sworn into
Congress. And I would hope that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would join us in our efforts to, again, get to the
bottom of it, and have folks from the Administration testify.
Because invariably--and I think, as you have referenced in
the past--administrations change, right? We have elections. And
at the end of the day there may very well be another
administration and a Congress that is hoping to seek witnesses
from that particular administration. And I would hope that we
could treat these issues with the respect that they deserve.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
Next, Ms. DeGette, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I have been
here at the hearing since the very beginning, and it is very
important. And it is important to hear from our witnesses.
Like all of us, I have been shocked by the unrestrained use
of force by the Federal law enforcement agencies. And we are
here today because one of those agencies, the Park Police,
violated its own use of force policies in following President
Trump's directive to clear Lafayette Square.
Mr. Chairman, your staff has a copy of the U.S. Park
Police's Use of Force Policy, General Order 3615, updated
November 1, 2019. And I would like to ask for unanimous consent
to enter that into the record right now.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This policy governs
the conditions under which the Park Police's use of force is
appropriate.
Ms. Brace and Mr. McDonald, I want to ask you about some of
the parts of this policy, and whether they are consistent with
what you saw on June 1. And I would appreciate yes-or-no
answers, if you are able.
The policy, which was updated last fall says, ``An officer
is expected to employ only the minimum level of responsible
force necessary to control a situation.''
Now, Ms. Brace, I believe you testified that you have
covered a number of demonstrations. Is that correct?
Ms. Brace. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. So, in your experience being at that protest,
did you view the U.S. Park Police and other law enforcement
officers employing only the minimum level of reasonable force
necessary to control the situation?
Ms. Brace. No, I don't.
Ms. DeGette. The policy also says--oh, Mr. McDonald, I want
to ask you the same question. You testified that you served in
the military, and so I assume you have seen people using force.
I want to ask you, did you view the U.S. Park Police and other
law enforcement employing only the minimal level of reasonable
force necessary to control the situation?
Mr. McDonald. I believe they used excessive force.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, Ms. Brace and Mr. McDonald,
did either of you see a situation where the Park Police use of
force seemed to be required, and then did they stop it once it
didn't seem to be required?
Ms. Brace, we will start with you.
Ms. Brace. No, not that I saw.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. McDonald. Can you repeat the question?
Ms. DeGette. Yes. My question is did either of you see a
situation where they seemed to need to use the force, and then
they stopped it once it wasn't required any more?
Mr. McDonald. No, I did not.
Ms. DeGette. OK. The policy also says an officer shall, if
possible, first attempt to diffuse the situation through
advice, warning, verbal persuasion, tactical communication, and
other de-escalation and conflict negotiation techniques.
Ms. Brace, did you see the police doing anything like that?
Ms. Brace. No, I did not.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. McDonald. No, I did not.
Ms. DeGette. Finally, the policy says the goal of de-
escalation tactics is to gain the voluntary compliance of a
subject, when appropriate and consistent with personal safety,
to reduce or eliminate the necessity to use force.
Ms. Brace. Ms. Brace, did you see the police doing that?
Ms. Brace. No, I did not.
Ms. DeGette. How about you, Mr. McDonald?
Mr. McDonald. No, I did not.
Ms. DeGette. Now, did you see anybody at that particular
protest who was not complying voluntarily?
Mr. McDonald. No, ma'am.
Ms. Brace. Not from what I saw.
Ms. DeGette. Were each of you complying voluntarily?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, I was.
Ms. Brace. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, just looking at the U.S.
Park Police's Use of Force Policy, it seems to me that they
were violating their very own policy, which is what the purpose
of this hearing is. And I find it very telling that the
Administration didn't even show up to explain any of this
today.
I just want to take one more minute of personal privilege
and, Bishop, tell you how proud I am of you, as a woman of God,
to stand up for the right of peaceful protesters. I am a
Presbyterian in Denver, and my church is very involved with the
Black Lives Matter movement. And we are involved in these
protests. And we think that is part of the very fabric of
Christianity, and the very fabric of America. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me recognize Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for conducting
this hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony in
observance of what you saw that day.
My wife and I happened to be in our living room, watching
incredulously, especially after Attorney General Barr went out
to the square to survey, and then ordered the clearing of that
square--how outrageous, how un-American--just so somebody could
take a photo op.
Let me ask you, Mr. McDonald. Let me first thank you for
your service to this country and for your activism. Given your
testimony from what you saw on that day, did you see any
protesters act violent, or did you see any of the demonstrators
throw projectiles at law enforcement?
Mr. McDonald. No, I didn't see anyone throwing anything. I
didn't see anyone acting violent.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that. And for me, for a Black man
who served his country, when you hear this Administration and
President say time after time that he does a lot for the Black
community, then to be treated like a hostile, what goes through
your mind?
Mr. McDonald. I mean, it fits the rhetoric of where a Black
man is always persecuted. I am out there for just reason. I
have an Administration--not just an administration but a
government--that is trying to clear me for exercising my First
Amendment rights.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that. And let's put politics aside.
Does the President's narrative seem consistent if peaceful
demonstrators cannot peacefully protest the racial injustices
we see and face on a daily basis?
Mr. McDonald. I think probably the last 10 protests have
been very peaceful. The whole world has seen us peacefully
protest. I think those rioters and all that stuff was an
isolated incident. Ninety percent of the protests I have been
to--well, 100 percent I have been to have been positive, and
about 90 percent I have seen on TV have been very positive.
Mr. Clay. Having a military background, do you consider the
training of those law enforcement personnel that you came up
against on June 1 to be in a posture of warrior or guardian?
Mr. McDonald. Warrior.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Ms. Brace, have you covered other protests where you have
experienced law enforcement treating media in a similar manner
to your experience in Black Lives Matter Square?
Ms. Brace. No, I have not.
Mr. Clay. You have not. And as has already been mentioned,
this Administration's story around what happened that day and
why it happened keeps changing. When you hear the
Administration's changing explanations, what goes through your
mind, as a journalist?
Ms. Brace. Well, obviously, I am here to observe what is
happening, not to speculate on why it is happening. But all I
can tell you is that on that day, on June 1, the plan seemed to
change, because we were expecting the curfew to be enforced at
7 p.m., and it was enforced at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Clay. And during your broadcast, you mentioned that the
police were being indiscriminate, and didn't seem to change
their actions after you stated you were members of the media.
Do you think at all that the treatment of you was intentionally
directed at you, due to your status as a journalist?
Ms. Brace. I can't say whether we were targeted because we
were working press. I can say it was clear we were working
press, and even after my cameraman, Tim Myers, was assaulted
and it was acknowledged very clearly that we were press, I was
then hit across the back with a truncheon as I was trying to
move away, as directed.
Mr. Clay. Did you say that you got hit with a projectile?
Ms. Brace. Yes.
Mr. Clay. A rubber bullet?
Ms. Brace. I am not sure whether it was a rubber bullet. It
was a projectile. A non-lethal bullet.
Mr. Clay. I see.
And Mr. McDonald, did you get hit with an object?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, I got a plume of tear gas exploded right
below my feet, and they threw a flash grenade right at my
ankles, to the point it exploded. When I felt all the pellets,
I asked the officer on film, I said, ``What did you throw at
me?''
And I saw something like smoke from the ground. I
correlated both together. I said, ``Did that--whatever you
threw, did it blow up on the ground, and the asphalt hit me?''
And I thought it may have hit because the loud sound--I was
oblivious to what it was. When it hit the ground I just felt
something hit me, and I thought it was the asphalt--it was that
powerful, where it blew the asphalt up. And I asked, ``What was
that?''
Mr. Clay. All right, my time is up. But this is not how
civilians in this Nation should be treated who are trying to
exercise their constitutional rights. And I defy anyone on this
panel to refute that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me now recognize Mrs. Dingell for your 5 minutes. Thank
you.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking
Member, who it is always good to see. I want to thank you both
for having these hearings. And I think it is really important
to say, as we start this, that I don't think any person on
either side of this aisle thinks that violence is ever OK at a
protest. And I don't think you see people here saying that.
And I want to say that to some of my Republican colleagues.
I have actually been--the woman who you couldn't force out of
her house 3 weeks ago--have been at 17 vigil marches and
protests in the last 2 weeks, because the people of my
communities have organized them. And some are areas that do
them all the time, and some are ones that do them none of the
time. And the first ones that I went down river--most of them
were organized by young people.
One of my police chiefs immediately said to me, ``What are
you doing here?'' And not because he was upset that I was
there, but he had thought I was just going to the city hall.
And people had just arrived that they were trying to not let
the young people see with bricks, and arrived to cause trouble.
And I know which organization they are with. But throughout
these, my police chiefs have walked with the young people. They
have been alert. They have worked together.
And I have had 2 bad incidences out of the 17, one where a
woman ran a car through us, and the second where young people
heard the word--a word that they should never hear once. And I
was called a White--several not pleasant words.
But our police chief handled them. And I think that that is
what we want to talk about today, because I think Americans
have the right to peacefully assemble and protest. It is a
fundamental right of our democracy. And how these get handled
is really important. So, we have to ask these questions because
we don't have a witness today, as has been said. We have to
make sure that that freedom of speech and that freedom--I am
proud of some of the young people that I have seen out there,
but we don't want to see windows--and some of these areas have
deliberately been broken. And my law enforcement knew that I
was being targeted by some people, and I wasn't going to let
that stop me, either.
But I want to ask some questions of both Mr. McDonald and
Ms. Brace.
Mr. McDonald, some of my colleagues across the aisle have
attempted to use the actions of a few protesters at a separate
protest against police brutality to depict the peaceful
protests that you were part of as violent, or call it a riot. I
want to be clear, Mr. McDonald. Did you personally witness
violence or rioting prior to the police attacking the
protesters on June 1?
Mr. McDonald. No, ma'am.
Mrs. Dingell. Ms. Brace, would you agree with Mr. McDonald?
Did you witness violent activity or any sort of similar events
prior to the police moving against the protesters on June 1?
Ms. Brace. No, I did not.
Mrs. Dingell. Furthermore, during these attacks you
identified yourself repeatedly as a member of the media.
Correct?
When you did that, when you announced yourself, did they
refrain from violence?
And they went after your cameraman, so even if they didn't
see your media credential, which--people have raised a
question--it was pretty obvious that your cameraman was a
member of the media, correct?
Ms. Brace. Yes, absolutely.
Mrs. Dingell. And can you talk about the injuries you and
your cameraman sustained, and the damage your equipment took?
Ms. Brace. Tim suffered what I would describe as a harder
hit than what I did, as you saw in that video, with the shield
to his stomach. And then the camera was punched, which pushed
it back into his face.
He also was hit with a non-lethal projectile in the back of
the neck. As you saw, I was struck across the back with a
truncheon. And I was hit a few times in the legs by non-lethal
bullets. I was hit quite directly in the back side, so that
would be my most significant injury.
In terms of our gear, the camera, obviously, that Tim was
holding up to his face was damaged when it was punched. A
separate lens that I was carrying in my backpack was damaged
when I was hit. And also, our live transmission device--we call
it a TDU--was significantly damaged when it was hit by----
Mrs. Dingell. So, several thousand dollars' worth of
damage. I want to ask you one more quick question, Mr.
McDonald. You mentioned in your testimony that you took
pictures and videos during the attack. Why did you feel like it
was important to document everything that was happening?
Ms. Brace. I believed it was a pivotal point in history,
just to be out there amongst those diverse protesters. And
second, it was for my safety, because Trump had made the threat
of using weapons and dogs on us, and I really took it
literally. So, that was the second main reason why I recorded.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. My time is up, but thank you, all
of you, for being here. And the Bishop, too.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me express my
gratitude to all of our witnesses this morning, to the Ranking
Member, as well.
During this difficult moment in our history, we are
grieving more than a senseless murder of George Floyd. This is
not new. The outrage is not new. We are grieving the 400-year
legacy of the inter-generational trauma from slavery,
lynchings, the Jim Crow era, and police brutality. The racial
injustice in our country's history is still costing us innocent
lives.
What we are seeing today is the result of historic
injustices that have kept people living in poverty, in
communities where schools have fewer resources, and where
people live less long, due to lack of health care, coupled with
aggressive policing.
Earlier this month, organizers and protest participants
were attacked while demonstrating against police brutality in
DC, and this hearing brings that out. Facing protests over the
use of force, the U.S. Park Police responded with more force.
Mr. McDonald, thank you for being here. In your testimony,
you shared that you received training in CS gas, also known as
tear gas, during your time in boot camp. Can you describe the
conditions under which you were instructed to use tear gas
during your training, and how that compares to what you
witnessed at Lafayette Square?
Mr. McDonald. Well, first of all, in boot camp it was
controlled. It was around medics, and they had personnel there,
because it was done in a safe environment. What I witnessed at
Lafayette Square was excessive force. They did it without any
kind of medical people around. They knew people would get
injured behind this. The Navy did it in a much better, safer
way, and it was done because we were in boot camp, a controlled
environment. Although we were protesting, they threw that. I
just think that we weren't prepared for that. They shouldn't
have used that on protesters. They are not soldiers.
Mr. Garcia. Based on your training, the U.S. Park Police
didn't follow the proper protocols, in your opinion?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, that can't be a necessary way to remove
people.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Black and Brown communities are already being ravaged by
the deadly virus and an unprecedented economic crisis. Now they
are being terrorized by militarized police. Militarization of
law enforcement and the unjustified use of force against
organizers and community members must end. Tear gas is a
chemical weapon banned in war, and it should never again be
used against demonstrators, but especially not during a
pandemic.
We have heard countless stories of organizers and protest
participants suffering traumatic injuries at the hands of law
enforcement, or, like Mr. McDonald, who was, ``met with tear
gas and flash bangs, which exploded with shrapnel.''
That is why my colleagues and I introduced a bill to stop
the escalation of such police tactics against peaceful
demonstrators, and ban the use of chemical weapons in our
streets. The bottom line is the rightful demonstrations that we
are witnessing in the wake of the killings of George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, and other Black lives taken by the police
should never have been met with the deadly force from law
enforcement.
The U.S. Park Police and other police and military forces
forcibly removed peaceful protesters with chemical irritants.
And for what? For the President's photo op?
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize Mr.
Soto for his questions and his time.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The whole Nation
witnessed videos showing President Trump, White House Justice
and Defense officials authorize use of force to remove peaceful
protesters. Lafayette Square Park and the adjacent Pennsylvania
Avenue, an area right in front of the White House, is our
Nation's public square. This a traditional area for Americans
to express our First Amendment rights, the infringement of
which deserves heightened scrutiny.
It was particularly disgraceful that these tactics were
used so the President could engage in a photo op. Many have
testified that the incident occurred 1 hour before curfew. I do
agree with other members of this Committee that city officials
should be wary about creating curfews of otherwise peaceful
protests. These dictated curfews often create unnecessary
conflict between police and peaceful protesters. We know, based
on the testimony, this was not the case in this incident.
I want to welcome Professor Turley to the Committee. I
would be remiss if I didn't say this hearkens me back to 14
years ago in your Supreme Court class at GW Law. And I want to
thank you for being such a great teacher.
Professor Turley, some evidence suggests that the crowd was
cleared for purposes of a photo op. Other evidence suggests the
President wanted to display a show of strength after damaging
coverage of him retreating to a bunker a few days earlier. I am
concerned that the President may have specifically intended to
intimidate or silence political speech, or simply that he
didn't care about the injuries that would occur as a result of
his actions in those last minutes that you really focus on
before they begin clearing the area.
If President Trump or other responsible officials harbored
either specific intent to intimidate or silence political
speech or, at the very least, had a reckless disregard for the
safety and First Amendment rights of protesters, would either
of those states of mind be relevant in determining a violation
of their First Amendment rights?
Mr. Turley. Thank you very much for that question. This is,
in fact, my ideal, to have a former student asking me a
question, looking at two counsels on either side of the Chair
that are both GW grads, and a photographer who is a GW student.
So, I could not be in a happier spot.
But to answer your question, most certainly the intent does
matter. My testimony first starts out with the motivational
question. That motivational question, I think, we will get more
salient information with the inquiry of Congress.
And one of the things that, personally, I would look at, is
it seems to me that there is evidence that the plan was put
into place 48 hours before, in terms of development. It was
approved in the morning. An order went out at 2. That does not
mean, however, that it answers, even if those facts are true,
whether the President's photo op played a role in the size of
the perimeter, the decision to move people all the way to I
Street, for example. Those are things that are legitimate
questions.
And as I said, if Attorney General Barr cleared that area
for the purpose of the photo op, despite knowing him for many
years, being a graduate of our law school, I would immediately
call for him to step down, because that would be an outrageous
use of power.
So, the answer is yes. If this was done to intimidate
people, this would be a serious problem. The Supreme Court said
in Bose that protests are classically political speech. And
that is why the courts have been so protective.
So, I think that your question is a relevant one. And more
importantly, we can get those answers as we get more of these
facts confirmed from Congress.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Professor Turley.
Mr. McDonald, thank you for your service to our country. On
behalf of the U.S. Government, I would like to apologize for
your brutal treatment you received by your own government.
We recently passed the Justice in Policing Act of 2020. It
stops the militarization of police by stopping a Federal
program that gives local police surplus military equipment. As
a veteran familiar with the differences between the objectives
of military and police, how important is it to stop the de-
militarization of our police force?
Mr. McDonald. It is very important. I mean, you lose
control once you militarize too much. The military is there for
a certain reason, and city cops are there for a certain reason.
We have distinguished who does what, and I just think, giving
the city police and Park Police reasons to act like a military
unit isn't good for any kind of protest, going forward.
Mr. Soto. Thank you. Ms. Brace, on behalf of the U.S.
Government, I would like to apologize for your brutal treatment
by this government. I am appalled about how you and Mr.
McDonald were treated.
We have seen an increasing level of violence against
members of the press in the United States as of late. What do
you suggest needs to happen to better protect members of the
press in the United States?
Ms. Brace. Again, I wouldn't presume to tell the American
people how to run their government or their police force.
I think, basically, the First Amendment needs to be
enforced, in that the media needs to be able to work freely and
without fear, especially from law enforcement.
Mr. Soto. And finally, Bishop Budde, you were installed on
November 12, 2011, so you have had a lot of experience with
Lafayette Square. How often do you see people protest in
Lafayette Square?
Rev. Budde. I don't know that I could count, but it is, as
I said before, it is the park where people gather, and it is a
common sight for protests. I think there are protests there
every day, actually.
Mr. Soto. Thanks, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me recognize Mr. Horsford.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know all
too well the pain and loss that the Black community has faced
because of law enforcement's abuse of force. What took place at
Lafayette Park stands against our Nation's ideals. Peaceful
protestors were exercising their First Amendment constitutional
rights.
Unfortunately, the President, in an effort to have an ill-
advised and unnecessary photo op, decided to upend the First
Amendment rights of peaceful protesters at Lafayette Park by
using tear gas and firing rubber pellets on them.
It is important that lawmakers can look outside their
windows and see and hear protesters. They are letting their
government know that change must occur. Instead, this President
acted like an authoritarian dictator, and used excessive force
so he could stage a 3-minute photo op at the historic St.
John's Episcopal Church. This is simply wrong.
As a Black man, as a father of three children, two young
boys, I know we must find more common ground and enact real
reforms across this Nation and for my home state in Nevada. We
need to continue to have honest dialogue about race and other
injustices and, more importantly, act boldly for the change
that we need throughout our society.
Unfortunately, those actions taken by the President at
Lafayette Square do not bring us closer to solving these
problems. In fact, they make it worse.
Mr. McDonald, can you tell us what brought you to the
protest, and what were your general feelings about your fellow
protesters? Were they peaceful? Did you see anybody doing
anything different than exercising their First Amendment
rights?
Mr. McDonald. Well, my reason for being there was for my
First Amendment rights, protesting the inequity in the Justice
Department. Everyone I saw, from the minute I started recording
at 6, until the minute they attacked us, was peaceful.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
Mr. McDonald. I didn't see anything being thrown, other
than verbal things they were saying. No one attacked those
officers.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. And what was your first reaction
when police in riot gear used tear gas on you and your fellow
peaceful protesters?
Mr. McDonald. It was confusion first, because you know it
is 30 minutes before curfew. Then you wonder why are they doing
this. Like, what happened? You would have thought something
drastically happened for that to change from a peaceful protest
to, like, literally 3 seconds they switch and turn into a
military unit.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
Mr. McDonald. It was confusion.
Mr. Horsford. Ms. Brace, seeing the way you were treated in
that video was shocking, to say the least. You were clearly
identified as a member of the press. You were in an area
designated for members of the press. And yet those officers
were completely indiscriminate in their attack.
In your years of experience as a reporter, have you or your
cameraman ever been treated this way before?
Ms. Brace. No.
Mr. Horsford. When you set up to work that day, did you
assume you would be safe from violence at the hands of law
enforcement?
Ms. Brace. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Horsford. Why?
Ms. Brace. Because of the First Amendment and the respect
for the media in a democracy.
Mr. Horsford. Can you tell us more about the conduct of law
enforcement that you have observed as a reporter, and what was
it that happened at Lafayette Square the first time that you
have experienced this?
Ms. Brace. Well, as you saw in the video, we were there to
report on what was happening, expecting the curfew to come into
effect at 7 p.m.
Then that line of police came through very early, very
suddenly, and very quickly. We moved right to the side, where
we were very much out of their way. There is nothing that would
have prevented them walking past us easily. And that is when
they turned on us, and we were both physically assaulted.
In terms of the protest itself, I would say that it was
largely peaceful. It was very different to the night before,
where we did see those fires and looting. That was nothing of
the sort on the afternoon of June 1.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
Right Reverend Budde, can you please talk about the
teachings of the Episcopalian faith, and whether those are in
line with the current President's actions of using tear gas by
police in riot gear against peaceful protesters?
What was your reaction when the current President used a
Bible for the sole purpose of a photo op?
Rev. Budde. As I have stated before, there is nothing in
scripture or in the teachings of our church that would condone
violent actions of State officials against innocent protesters.
So, I would say that it is completely antithetical to the
teachings of our church.
When I saw the President hold the Bible in front of the
church, as I said, I felt he had usurped a spiritual--he was
taking a spiritual message, or claiming a spiritual authority
that he did not have to justify or to bolster a message that
was counter to our teachings and our attempt to follow Jesus
and his way of love.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Tonko. OK, great. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to
our witnesses also. Thank you.
I am devastated that this hearing is needed, but it is
absolutely needed. I see massive pain in this country, our
country, right now. For many, this pain comes from the nervous
uncertainty of living in a world dominated by a deadly, highly
contagious virus. The last 4 months have shown many of us what
it is like to live in a society where you don't get to write
the rules.
Black Americans have known that feeling for 400 years. They
are the descendants of the people kidnapped into slavery. They
are the product of pervasive and systematic racist policies,
not just Southern Jim Crow laws, but racist Federal policy, as
well. Black Americans were forbidden from claiming land in the
Homestead Act, excluding them from the largest and most
permanent wealth giveaway in our American history. They were
effectively excluded from the New Deal and the GI Bill, which
can be argued as the foundation for our American middle class.
They were, and in many cases still are, legally allowed to be
profiled against by a police officer, who could use that power
to investigate, intimidate, and, far too often, end a life. And
now, thanks to the compendium of institutional racism, they are
getting sick and dying from COVID at a much higher rate than
White Americans.
But Black Americans are, sadly, used to living in a society
where, for the longest time, they didn't get to write the
rules. I am a 71-year-old White man, and I will never know what
that feels like. But I am brokenhearted that, as a member of
our society, I share some responsibility for the pain Black
Americans feel.
Let me begin by first addressing my questions to Her
Excellency, Bishop Budde. And Bishop, did I pronounce your last
name correctly?
Rev. Budde. You did.
Mr. Tonko. OK. What does Christianity teach us to do if we
have harmed others?
Rev. Budde. To seek restitution, forgiveness, and at all
times mercy, because we all fall short in the sight of God.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. In Lafayette Square on June 1, and
repeatedly since then across the country, it is asking, begging
for an end to this pain.
Rev. Budde. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. And as a fellow believer, it seems this is the
moment, if any, where we should be asking for such forgiveness,
and then doing what we can to eliminate pain into the future.
Mr. McDonald, can you remind me again how the peaceful
protesters were treated?
Mr. McDonald. We were treated with weapons of war. We were
treated like criminals. We were treated like we were breaking
the law. We were only exercising our First Amendment rights.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I think that, as we have learned today,
nothing in this response sounds compassionate to me. Nothing in
this response sounds like a teaching we would find in any book
of faith that would guide any one of us. Nothing in that
response sounds forgiving to me. And as one who has practiced
my faith, I think that it is part of some of the fundamentals
that we all share in making certain that we are a just and
loving society.
So, I deeply implore our Nation's President and any of her
leaders to refer to some of the scripture, and certainly
scripture found in that book that he held outside of St. John's
Church that day. And I would encourage him to revisit the verse
from Micah 6:8, which reads, ``What does the Lord require of
you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly
with your God?'' I think that is instruction for all of us.
Mr. Chair, we have to do better. Let us heed the words of
Micah. As a Nation, let us resolve to go forward, to build a
fairer Nation. Let us now do the hard work of laboring for
justice, denouncing violence, loving kindness, and, most
certainly, walking humbly but hurriedly on the path to what we
all respect, a more perfect union.
With that, I yield back and, again, thank our witnesses for
being here today, for adding what they did to today's
discussion, and providing that sort of clarity that we are all
looking for.
And, Mr. Chair, again, I do yield back, and thank you for
the opportunity.
The Chairman. And thank you, sir, for, I may say, very
profound and important comments that you made. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
The Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses. I appreciate
it very much, all four being here today.
My colleagues, through the 2\1/2\ hours that you have been
here, have asked a lot of the questions that were important to
me.
I think that we heard a lot of important information today
about the attack on the protesters at Lafayette Square on June
1.
But we didn't hear a peep from the Administration. We
invited Acting Park Police Chief Monahan. We jumped through
hoops, as different requirements were presented to us in terms
of his coming forward. The latest one was that he was too busy,
and there could be a conflict because of potential litigation
down the road.
And it would have been very helpful to have him here, or a
representative of the Department, so we could understand which
version of the truth they have offered--and they have offered
several since June 1--is actually the correct one, and so that
there is no mistake, and nothing is being hidden from the
American people, that it is out there, and it is transparent.
And it is our responsibility to provide that oversight.
And one thing as well today, is that we looked at what my
colleagues said today, and the analysis from my respected
Republican colleagues, the main witness--the analysis, as I got
it, depends on the Administration telling the truth. Now, that
would, I think, create some skepticism and doubt among many,
many, many Americans at this point.
We also heard from our colleagues about a lot of things
that didn't happen that date. The assumption is that the
protesters in Lafayette Square were dangerous by association,
and that is not the way it should have been approached. Pre-
judging a group of people based on unrelated actions, actions
separate from them, of others might be at the very heart of the
problem here.
Maybe the protesters--and to deal with this in a bipartisan
way, I remember the calls for de-escalation, restraint,
extended patience when we were dealing with the takeover of a
park facility by armed individuals. And the struggle over the
Bundy family and their refusal to pay fees for grazing on
public lands, and action by the Federal Government to try to
redeem that. I hope that that same bipartisan attitude of
restraint and--not create a double standard in which--because
perhaps the message in this one is not what you wanted to hear
in Lafayette Square. But just like the message that the Bundys
were having when they refused and armed themselves--I didn't
want to hear, but that is what the Park Police chose, that is
what the U.S. Marshal chose, that is what the FBI chose:
restraint, patience--prolonged patience, I might add.
I also want to talk a little bit about leading up to this
hearing, a lot of the discussion about issues having to do with
what led up to this. And that is why I made my point about
people shouldn't be associated with anything that is going on,
that the protesters are the enemies, that they are not American
citizens exercising their right under the First Amendment, that
it is about the statues, that it is about the isolated series
of violence.
Let me guarantee you, I have been around long enough, have
been to enough protests, and been arrested for civil
disobedience myself to know and to be able to say that the tail
is not wagging the dog on this movement that is going on in
America right now. The dog is in charge. And that is the
American people. And those outlier issues of opportunism,
whether in appropriating the Black Lives Matter movement for
either a narrow ideological point or a criminal point, should
not be reflected onto what people are trying to say out in
America, period.
And I also have felt that this has opened up many things.
And, the irony of ironies, you have Mr. Pendley, who Trump is
recommending to run the other BLM, the Bureau of Land
Management. And he is one that did an Op Ed piece that said
that the Black Lives Matter movement is built on terrible lies.
And it goes again to make those associations. And he will be in
charge of the biggest land mass agency that we have in this
country if the Senate approves.
I think these contradictions, the fact that we are asked to
believe and that the Administration won't come forward and
allow a full questioning and a full disclosure and transparency
of all the information related to what happened June 1, I think
leads us to continue to press for the issue, not only of
accountability, but of reform with our Park Service police that
has to change. And hopefully, this hearing and you as
witnesses--thank you so much.
Members might ask you questions. You have a period of time
as well to return your responses. I appreciate your time and I
appreciate all the patience you have shown today.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I have one other--I ask unanimous
consent to add one more letter into the record, which was sent
by the Secretary to you, inviting you also to visit.
And I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan
manner, because the Administration did have an option of
willingness to come here and talk about their point of view. We
need to make sure that that is there, and that is accommodated
in the future. Thank you.
And just one last thing. Be careful about when you are
talking about the experience in the West, which was supposedly
done in a non-violent way, because it did leave one of the
citizens of my state dead in the snow.
The Chairman. On that uplifting note, let me adjourn the
meeting, and thank you very much, all of you. I appreciate it.
We all do.
[Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debra A. Haaland, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Mexico
Mr. Chair, thank you for convening today's panel. This is a
necessary conversation that is long overdue.
Our colleagues have said it already, but the events of June 1 will
no doubt go down as one of the darkest days of this presidency. And
that is saying something for a President that has put children in
cages, has protected his cronies from prosecution, and has opened our
elections to foreign interference.
Attacks on the Constitution aren't new for this President but
clearing a peaceful demonstration for a photo-op with his cabinet is an
unbelievable new low. While we will rightly focus on those actions of
June 1, we cannot lose sight of the larger moment we are in.
Today's hearing is also about a larger trend of systemic racism in
which militarized police intimidate and kill in communities of color
while defended from prosecution.
The President's recent actions brought that excessive force to the
fore in a new and unconstitutional way, but this is by no means an
isolated incident. And while I respect the work Federal civil servants
do every day to improve our country, there are times they do things our
Nation is not proud of.
In November 2017, the U.S. Park Police murdered Bijan Ghaisar just
over the river in Arlington. Killed him while he drove his car. Still,
his family has not had justice.
Earlier this year, in my state of New Mexico, Charles Gage Lorentz
was driving back to his home in Colorado when he was murdered by a U.S.
Park Ranger. I spoke to his mother's attorney recently, but I couldn't
explain why that killer still patrolled one of our national parks, why
he hadn't been brought to justice.
Today, we are here to talk about the President and his illegal and
unconstitutional actions. But we also need to discuss power, to discuss
fear, to discuss unequal treatment under the law. Because we did not
choose to live in a society where the President wields the power of our
government to break up peaceful protests any more than communities of
color across this Nation choose to live in fear of unequal policing.
Let's try to understand what breakdown in norms led to the horrible
injustice of the clearing of Lafayette Square. But let's also make sure
we keep in mind the culture of systemic oppression that allows this
same fear and power to control and kill in communities across our
country. Because this wasn't an isolated incident.
We've seen this excessive use of force by Park Police and park law
enforcement. We've seen this excessive use of force in the District,
and we've seen it in our communities. It is time for us all to stand up
and say, enough.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Bishop
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Washington, DC
June 5, 2020
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
Thirty years ago, on May 14, 1990, I was fortunate to witness an
oral argument at the Supreme Court of the United States. The matter
before the Court that day concerned whether the First Amendment
permitted prosecution for flag burning in violation of the Flag
Protection Act of 1989. When the Court handed down its verdict a few
weeks later, I stood and watched a peaceful demonstration on the steps
of the Court. The Court's determination was that the prosecutions under
the Flag Protection Act were not supportable under the First Amendment.
Since that moment, I have profoundly appreciated the Constitutional
protections that we, as Americans, enjoy and the seriousness with which
any effort by the government to limit those rights is, and should be,
viewed. The ability to freely express our views is fundamental to our
society, even when some might find the words or ideas being expressed
offensive or disagreeable. Just as our Constitution protects such forms
of speech, it guards our right to peaceably assemble.
After the Nation witnessed the horrific killing of George Floyd,
seeing with their own eyes a loss of life that should never have
occurred, many reacted. In doing so, many have sought to exercise their
rights peacefully; some have not, turning instead to unlawful activity.
The scope of the violence and destruction is significant. Neither the
American people nor the peaceful demonstrators are defined by those who
seek to terrorize our cities, vandalize our national memorials, ignite
our sacred sites, or attack our law enforcement officers and fellow
citizens. But the presence of these criminals and their acts of
violence last weekend and into this week is indisputable.
The men and women in law enforcement, particularly the U.S. Park
Police (USPP) in this instance, are charged with safeguarding lives,
protecting our national treasures and symbols of democracy, and
preserving the natural and cultural resources entrusted to the
Department of the Interior. They do this with great honor. Since last
Friday, however, our colleagues at the USPP have been subjected to
violence; several sustained injuries, and some were hospitalized.
Beginning on Saturday, May 30, 2020, the USPP were under a state of
siege, and routinely subject to attack by violent crowds. The incidents
are numerous and include USPP officers having their police cars
vandalized; being subject to bombardment by lighted flares, Molotov
cocktails, rocks, bricks, bottles and other projectiles; and physical
assault so violent that to date over 50 area law enforcement officers
have been injured to some degree and even taken to local hospitals.
This includes one USPP officer so violently attacked that he required
emergency surgery.
These acts of violence were accompanied by vandalism and disorderly
conduct, such as the setting of numerous fires, including the burning
of an historic structure at Lafayette Park as well as at St. John's
Church; profane graffiti scrawled upon numerous public structures,
including the World War II Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial; and
multiple attempts to break through fence lines, bike racks, and other
barriers designed to restrain crowds from entering secure areas. These
are just a small sampling of the incidents faced by law enforcement
prior to the gathering on June 1, 2020.
In light of the activities on last Friday and Saturday--and at the
request of USPP--I requested the assistance of the National Guard
through the Secretary of Defense to ensure we could maintain the
security of President's Park, the National Mall, and other public
properties. Fortunately, my request for assistance was accepted.
On the evening of June 1, 2020, crowds gathered near the White
House complex and once again began assaulting law enforcement with
projectiles while threatening to storm the secured areas. Law
enforcement personnel at the scene issued an order for the
demonstration to fall back. When the crowd failed to comply with this
lawful order, police at the scene, including the USPP, responded by
pushing the crowd back. While standard equipment, including shields,
batons, and pepper balls where used to accomplish this, no tear gas was
used by USPP or associated units at Lafayette Park, contrary to widely
and erroneously reported assertions.
In working diligently to curtail the violence that was underway,
acting USPP Chief Gregory T. Monahan has publicly stated that the USPP
is following its established policy. The motto of the USPP is
Integrity, Honor, Service. These special men and women display an
unwavering commitment to serve and protect this great Nation, our
national treasures and symbols of democracy, and the natural and
cultural resources entrusted to us. I have personally visited Lafayette
Park multiple times over the last week. I have seen firsthand the
damage and destruction. I have talked to our men and women in blue.
They exemplify continued bravery, serving with distinction.
Politicizing their solemnity is unconscionable.
President Trump and I support justice and peace for every American.
The President has committed his Administration to the expansion of
economic opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. Under his
leadership, criminal justice reform has been enacted, investments in
underserved communities have been encouraged through opportunity zones,
and, before the novel coronavirus outbreak, the unemployment rate among
African Americans was recorded at its lowest in our Nation's history.
This Administration also remains absolutely and fundamentally
committed to the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights.
However, violence to our citizens, attacks upon our officers, and
destruction of our Nation's resources is unacceptable. Unfortunately,
your letter repeats and amplifies a narrative that is harmful to the
credibility of our law enforcement personnel and to the rule of law.
That is also unacceptable.
The men and women of the U.S. Park Police are public servants
charged to protect and serve. They take this charge seriously. I invite
you to join me in visiting with our injured officers so you can see and
hear, firsthand, their accounts. A similar letter is being sent to
Representative Debra Haaland.
Sincerely,
David L. Bernhardt,
Secretary of the Interior.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submission for the Record by Rep. DeGette
-- General Order for Use of Force No. 3615 approved by
Gregory T. Monahan, Acting Chief of Police, dated
November 1, 2019.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Bishop
-- Letter from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press dated June 29, 2020.
-- NPS Document on Memorials and Statues Vandalized in
Recent Protests from June 19-23.
# # #
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE U.S. PARK POLICE'S JUNE 1 ATTACK ON
PEACEFUL PROTESTERS AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE--PART 2
----------
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Sablan, Huffman,
Lowenthal, Gallego, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Haaland, Cunningham,
Velazquez, DeGette, Dingell, Brown, Soto, Cartwright, Garcia;
Gohmert, Gosar, Westerman, Graves, Hice, and Gonzalez-Colon.
Also present: Representative Beyer.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The Committee on Natural
Resources will come to order. The Committee is meeting today to
hear testimony on the Unanswered Questions About the U.S. Park
Police's June 1 Attack on the Peaceful Protesters in Lafayette
Square.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member or his designee. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
Therefore, I am asking for unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
As described in the notice, statements, documents or
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository
HNRCdocs@mail. house.gov.
Additionally, please note, as with our fully in-person
meetings, Members are responsible for their own microphones. As
with our fully in-person meetings, Members can be muted by
staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
Anyone present in the hearing room today must wear a mask
covering their mouth and nose. The Speaker of the House and the
Sergeant at Arms, acting upon the recommendation of the
Attending Physician, require face coverings for all indoor
gatherings over 15 minutes in length, such as this Committee
meeting. Accordingly, to maintain decorum and protect the
safety of Members and the staff, the Chair will not recognize
any Member in the hearing room to speak who is not wearing a
mask. According to House Rule 17 and Committee Rule 3(d), the
Chair retains the right of recognition of any Member who wishes
to speak or offer a motion. This right includes the
responsibility to maintain decorum.
As should be noted, it is permitted by the Sergeant at
Arms, through his guidance, that exceptions for Members briefly
removing their mask to facilitate lip reading by viewers who
are deaf or hard of hearing.
Finally, Members or witnesses who experience technical
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
With that, I will now recognize myself for the opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The Chairman. Today, we continue examining the June 1
decision by the U.S. Park Police and its partners to violently
remove peaceful protesters from the area around Lafayette
Square.
At our hearing last month, witnesses told us that law
enforcement officers assaulted peaceful protesters and
journalists without warning, using tear gas and batons. We
heard that the clergy at St. John's Church were forced off
their own property for President Trump's photo op, which the
diocese called a sacrilege.
Many questions remain unanswered. Who gave the street-
clearing order and why? Who authorized the police to assault
and gas non-violent protesters? Was this a premeditated plan to
dominate the battle scene, as Administration officials
described it? Was the non-violent crowd given a clear warning
and a safe way to leave?
We had hoped the Administration could help us answer these
questions at the June 29 meeting. They refused to testify, so I
am very glad that Mr. Gregory T. Monahan, Acting Chief of the
U.S. Park Police, is with us here today. We are also fortunate
to welcome Major Adam DeMarco. As the D.C. National Guard's
liaison to the Park Police on June 1, he relayed the orders
from the Park Police to the D.C. National Guard as they
unfolded. Your presence here is very important and shows much
courage, and I thank you for your decorated service to the
country, which includes your participation here today.
As the events have shown, Lafayette Square was a test run
for what is an illegal and ongoing crackdown by the Trump
administration that is being inflicted on cities across this
country and attempts to escalate those confrontations. Rather
than deal with and admit what did occur on June 1 was wrong,
the Administration is doubling down on its response to unarmed
civilians in cities like Portland, despite the mayor's demands
in Portland that they leave. And what we saw with civilians
being abducted off the streets without probable cause and taken
away in unarmed vans without insignia or identification on the
part of the law enforcement that took them away. And questions
continue about Chicago and Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the
President has threatened to use similar tactics. President
Trump openly says he is sending paramilitary forces to these
cities because they are run by Democratic mayors.
This raises a crucial question. Was this Park Police-led
assault on June 1 motivated by partisan hostility directed from
above to those demanding justice for George Floyd and so many
other Black men, women, and children and a very diverse group
of people exercising their First Amendment rights from the
Washington, DC region?
My friend and our friend, John Lewis, made one of his last
public appearances at the scene of the Park Police attacks on
protesters, only 6 days before the June 1 incident. He spent
his life doing what most of us know is the right thing,
fighting for fair and equal treatment of Black Americans and
all Americans.
I believe it is our duty in Congress, as Americans, and as
human beings, to ensure that others fighting for basic fairness
do not suffer the same brutality that Mr. Lewis had to endure
in his quest for fairness and equity for all people.
I think we can do better, and we can be better. And that is
why we are here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
Natural Resources
Today, we continue examining the June 1st decision by U.S. Park
Police and its partners to violently remove peaceful protesters from
the area around Lafayette Square.
At our hearing last month, witnesses told us that law enforcement
officers assaulted peaceful protesters and journalists without warning
using tear gas and batons. We heard that clergy of St. John's Church
were forced off their own property for President Trump's photo op,
which the diocese called ``sacrilege.''
Many questions remain unanswered. Who gave the street-clearing
order and why? Who authorized Park Police to beat and gas nonviolent
protesters? Was this a premeditated plan to ``dominate the battle
space'' as Administration officials described it? Was the nonviolent
crowd given a clear warning, and a safe way to leave?
We had hoped the Administration could help answer these questions
at our June 29th hearing. They refused to testify. So, I'm glad Mr.
Gregory T. Monahan, Acting Chief of the U.S. Park Police, is here
today.
We are fortunate to welcome Major Adam DeMarco. As the DC National
Guard's liaison to the Park Police on June 1, he relayed the orders
from the Park Police to the DC National Guard as they unfolded. Sir,
your presence here is an act of profound courage. I thank you for your
decorated service to our country, which includes your participation
today.
As events have shown, Lafayette Square was a test run for the
illegal, ongoing crackdown the Trump administration is inflicting on
cities across the country. Rather than admit what they did on June 1st
was wrong, the Administration is doubling down on its violent abuses of
unarmed civilians in cities like: Portland, where paramilitary agents
are abducting civilians off the streets without probable cause and
taking them away in unmarked vans, in flagrant violation of the
Constitution and the Portland mayor's demands that they leave; and
Chicago, where the President has threatened to use similar tactics.
President Trump openly says he's sending paramilitary forces to
these cities because they are run by Democratic mayors.
This raises a crucial question--was his Park Police-led assault on
June 1 motivated by partisan hostility to those demanding justice for
George Floyd and so many other Black men, women, and children?
My friend, Congressman John Lewis, made one of his last public
appearances at the scene of Park Police attacks on protestors only 6
days before June 1. He spent his life doing what most of us know is the
right thing: fighting for the fair and equal treatment of Black
Americans.
It is our duty--as Members of Congress, as Americans, and as HUMAN
BEINGS--to ensure that others fighting for basic fairness do not suffer
the same brutality Mr. Lewis suffered.
We must do better and BE better. That is why we are here today.
______
The Chairman. Now, let me now turn to the designee for the
Ranking Member.
Sir, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JODY B. HICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here today really
at what can only be considered Act 2 in the Democrats'
political theater regarding the events in Lafayette Square.
Even just the nature of today's title, that somehow the U.S.
Park Police attacked peaceful protesters is ludicrous. The
assertion that these were peaceful protests is completely
ignoring the facts.
We know that there were acts of arson, there was vandalism,
and there were assaults on police officers in the days leading
up to June 1. This is even acknowledged by the Democrats'
second panel witness in his written testimony, which states
that the witness learned that Federal law enforcement officers
from Park Police and U.S. Secret Service had sustained
injuries.
However, today's hearing title does aptly note that there
are some unanswered questions. I was confident these would
remain, because the one witness who might be able to answer
them was not at the previous hearing and the Majority knew
that, and yet continued with the hearing for show.
Chief Monahan, I am glad to see you here today. We are
honored to have you and we appreciate you testifying before the
Committee. You might not have all the answers today, but will
probably be able to provide some of the facts that were missing
from the previous hearing on this topic. So, we are grateful
for that.
My hope is that we will be able to see beyond the biased
scope through which the Democrats are viewing these actions and
establish a truthful history of what happened on that day. For
example, we need more details about the warnings that were
provided, and the opportunity protesters were given to
disperse. In the last hearing, Democrat witnesses claimed that
there were no warnings heard. But a CNN reporter, Kaitlan
Collins, live tweeted, ``Park Police is now warning protesters
to leave. They have given three warnings over a loudspeaker.''
That tweet came at 6:32 p.m. on June 1, so who are we to
believe?
But we cannot talk about the events of June 1 in a vacuum;
they must be viewed in a larger context. What plans were made
prior to June 1 about expanding the perimeter? How did the
levels of violence and destruction factor into the decision?
We should also compare the scenarios of Lafayette Park to
other protests that have occurred in the city. Americans
frequently exercise their rights to assemble and protest in
Washington. We have numerous, and from all ideological
perspectives. We have a number of examples from the Women's
March, the March for Life, March for Our Lives, just to name a
few. The difference between those events and the events at
Lafayette Square are the acts of violence and destruction.
While the predetermined narrative surrounding the events at
Lafayette Park and other events occurring throughout our Nation
outlines a story of law enforcement squashing rights, the
reality of the situation is quite different. In this case and
in others, law enforcement agents acted to secure an area and
restore peace, taking reactive measures after acts of violence
and destruction. The provokers, the true culprits responsible
for thwarting peaceful protests are the vandals and the
rioters. Bad actors have hijacked an important national
conversation to push their agenda of violence and disorder.
If we are looking to lay blame, those are the individuals
you should cast as the villains in this plot, those who ignored
the law and created an unsafe environment for peaceful
protesters and law enforcement alike. These are the individuals
who are responsible for limiting the ability of others to
express their thoughts and opinions.
Although I do not believe this is the closing act of this
political drama, perhaps this is the story line's plot twist
where this Committee focuses on facts instead of political
points. And maybe, just maybe, we will get to the truths about
the realities facing the men and women who serve our
communities as law enforcement officers and answer questions
about the decisions that were made on June 1.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hice. The gentleman yields
back.
Now we will turn to our first panel. Mr. Gregory T. Monahan
is the Acting Chief of the United States Park Police. He has
been with the Park Police or the Department of the Interior Law
Enforcement for over 23 years. Thank you very much, Chief, for
being here today.
I will just remind the witness that, under our Committee
Rules, you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but
your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will begin. The lights in front
of you will turn yellow when there is 1 minute left, and red
when time is expired.
I recommend that Members joining remotely use active
speaker thumbnail view, so they may pin the timer on their
screen and see Members in the room.
The Chair now, again, thanking Chief Monahan for being here
with us today, recognizes Acting Chief Monahan for his
testimony. Sir, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MR. GREGORY T. MONAHAN, ACTING CHIEF, UNITED
STATES PARK POLICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Monahan. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and
members of the Committee, my name is Gregory Monahan and I am
the Acting Chief of Police for the United States Park Police.
The United States Park Police is the oldest uniformed
Federal law enforcement agency in the United States and
provides law enforcement services, including the protection of
visitors and park resources to designated National Park Service
areas, primarily in Washington, DC; New York City; and the San
Francisco metropolitan areas. Here in Washington, that includes
the National Mall and Lafayette Park on the north side of the
White House at H Street, between 15th and 17th Streets, NW.
Each year, the United States Park Police facilitates
hundreds of First Amendment demonstrations and special events
in and around the District, some with permits and some with
not, to ensure the safety of the public and the protection of
national cultural assets. In facilitating these demonstrations,
the Park Police partners and coordinates with numerous public
safety and protection agencies within the National Capital
Area.
In the days following the death of George Floyd, videos
from witnesses and CCTV became public and ultimately led to
protests in cities throughout the United States and abroad. The
District became the focal point for demonstrators and one of
the most highly concentrated areas of protests was in and
around Lafayette Park, which is recognized as a public forum
for speech and assembly.
The Park Police is accustomed to managing large and
occasionally unruly public demonstrations and spontaneous
events at Lafayette Park, as well as throughout the National
Capital Area. In these instances, we have an obligation to
protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators, maintain law and
order, and keep our law enforcement officers safe.
Beginning on Friday, May 29, public use of Lafayette Park
became a danger to public safety, good order, and health, and
was inconsistent with the preservation of National Park Service
resources. Violent demonstrations occurred between May 29 and
June 1, and included projectiles aimed at law enforcement
officers, including bricks, rocks, caustic substances, frozen
water bottles, lit flares, fireworks, and 2x4 sections of
lumber. Protesters were physically combative with members of
law enforcement. The violent protesters injured 50 officers
from the United States Park Police alone. Eleven of my officers
were transported to area hospitals and three of them were
ultimately admitted.
The unprecedented and sustained nature of violence and
destruction associated with some of the activities in Lafayette
Park and the surrounding areas required de-escalation. And late
Saturday evening, on May 30 into Sunday morning, May 31, the
U.S. Park Police, in consultation with our partners from the
Secret Service, decided to temporarily restrict access to the
park and the adjacent streets and sidewalks by ordering and
installing anti-scale fencing across the north side of
Lafayette Park.
The installation of the fence met resource and protection
de-escalation goals while enabling First Amendment activity to
continue. Once we made that decision, installation of the fence
was dependent on two factors. First, we were required to have
sufficient resources on scene to safely clear Lafayette Park
and H Street. And second, the fencing had to be present at the
park. Both of these requirements were not met until later in
the day on Monday, June 1. Once the fencing arrived, an on-the-
ground assessment of the violence and danger presented by the
crowd led to the clearing of the park and the installation of
the fence.
The Park Police has faced a significant amount of criticism
on the heels of the June 1 operation. However, the installation
of the no-scale fence on the north side of Lafayette Park was a
key tactic that served to greatly de-escalate the violent
behavior of bad actors. Violence dropped dramatically on June 2
and afterward in that area, and First Amendment activities
continued.
In this case, I believe the United States Park Police acted
with tremendous restraint in the face of severe violence from a
large group of bad actors, who again caused 50 of my officers
to seek medical attention. Our actions that day centered around
public safety and the safety of my officers. And the decision
to install the fencing was in furtherance of that commitment
toward de-escalation.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering questions the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Monahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory T. Monahan, Acting Chief, United States
Park Police, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members
of the Committee. My name is Gregory Monahan and I am the acting Chief
of the United States Park Police.
The United States Park Police, established in 1791, is the oldest
uniformed Federal law enforcement agency in the United States. An urban
law enforcement unit, the United States Park Police provides law
enforcement services to designated areas administered by the National
Park Service (NPS), primarily in the Washington, DC, New York City, NY
and San Francisco, CA metropolitan areas, protecting the safety of
visitors and park resources.
In the District of Columbia, the Park Police has primary
jurisdiction over Federal parkland, including the National Mall and
Lafayette Park. Each year the Park Police facilitates hundreds of First
Amendment demonstrations and special events in the Washington DC area,
some with permits and some without, to ensure the safety of the public
and the protection of national cultural assets. In facilitating these
demonstrations, the Park Police partners and coordinates with numerous
public safety and protection agencies within the National Capital Area
of Region 1.
In the days following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, videos from witnesses and CCTV became public and ultimately
led to protests in cities throughout the United States and abroad. The
Nation's capital became a focal point for demonstrators. One of the
most highly concentrated areas of protest occurred in and around
Lafayette Park, which sits on the north side of the White House on H
Street between 15th and 17th Streets, NW. Lafayette Park is recognized
as a public forum for freedom of assembly and speech. The Park Police
is accustomed to managing large, and on occasion unruly public
demonstrations and spontaneous events at the Park, as well as
throughout the National Capital Area of Region 1. In these instances,
we have an obligation to protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators,
maintain law and order, and keep our law enforcement officers safe.
Unfortunately, beginning on Friday, May 29, 2020, public use of
Lafayette Park became a danger to public safety, good order, and
health, and was inconsistent with the preservation of NPS resources.
Violent demonstrations occurred between May 29 and June 1 and included
projectiles aimed at law enforcement officers that included bricks,
rocks, caustic liquids, water bottles, lit flares, fireworks, and 2x4
sections of wood. Protestors were also physically combative with
members of law enforcement. These violent protestors caused injuries to
over 50 officers of the United States Park Police. Of those, 11
officers were transported to the hospital and 3 were ultimately
admitted.
The unprecedented and sustained nature of the violence and
destruction associated with some of the activities in Lafayette Park
and surrounding park areas immediate and adjacent to the White House
required de-escalation. Late Saturday evening of May 30 into Sunday
morning May 31, the United States Park Police, in consultation with the
United States Secret Service, decided to temporarily restrict access to
Lafayette Park and the adjacent streets and sidewalks by ordering and
installing no-scale fencing across the north side of the Park. The
installation of the fence would meet the resource protection and de-
escalation goals while enabling First Amendment activity to continue.
Once we made the decision to order the no-scale fence, the
installation of the fence was dependent on two factors: the first was
that we were required to have sufficient resources on scene to safely
clear Lafayette Park and H Street; and the second was that the fencing
had to be present at the Park. Both of these requirements were not met
until later in the day on Monday, June 1. Once the fencing arrived, an
on-the-ground assessment of the violence and danger presented by the
crowd led to the clearing of the Park and the installation of the
fence.
The United States Park Police has faced a significant amount of
criticism on the heels of the June 1 operation. However, the
installation of the no-scale fence on the north side of Lafayette Park
was a key tactic that served to greatly reduce the violent behavior of
bad actors. The Park Police takes seriously its commitment to protect
the public and our Nation's parklands and cultural assets, and the
decision to install the fencing was in furtherance of that commitment.
Fortunately, that decision had the intended effect--violence dropped
dramatically on June 2 and afterward in that area and First Amendment
activities continued.
I believe the vast majority of law enforcement officers throughout
this country are dedicated public servants who pursue this noble
calling with courage in their hearts and decency in their actions. On
the whole, the United States Park Police acted with tremendous
restraint in the face of severe violence from a large group of bad
actors who caused 50 of my officers to seek medical attention. Our
actions as an agency on June 1 centered around public safety and the
safety of my officers.
I look forward to answering any questions the Committee has and I
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
______
The Chairman. For the testimony, reminding the Members of
the rule imposing a 5-minute limit on the questions. The Chair
on our side of the dais will recognize the Chairs of the
Subcommittees and then proceed on a first-come-first-served
basis going forward.
With that, let me turn to Mr. Huffman for your 5 minutes,
sir.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Monahan, welcome. You have spoken a lot in your
testimony about the time frame from George Floyd's murder until
June 1, and you have talked with respect to Lafayette Park
about the period between--your words, between May 29 and June
1. This Committee in this hearing is focused entirely on June
1, and the chronology matters.
Are you suggesting that some of these violent incidents by
protesters, the throwing of caustic liquids and bricks and
projectiles and harming officers occurred on June 1?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir, I am. On June 1 and throughout that
operational period, we saw sustained violence from a number of
bad actors in Lafayette Park and on H Street.
Mr. Huffman. Can you provide this Committee with
documentation of that? Because that directly contradicts other
firsthand evidence that we have, including video evidence.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. Any request for any documents, I am
happy to----
Mr. Huffman. We want to see everything you have on that.
Now, did that happen before or after 6:35 p.m., when your
officers and others began advancing on the protesters?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, so the level of violence that we were
subjected to on June 1 was----
Mr. Huffman. No, no, no. A very direct question. Did the
violence that you are referring to happen before 6:35 p.m.?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. I understand the question. And the
violence that we were subjected to was throughout the entire
operational period, before and after.
Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you. And, again, we really do
want to see that evidence, sir.
Mr. Monahan, you have been with the Park Police for a long
time, so you are surely familiar with the settlement your
agency entered into in 2015 after 13 years of litigation. You
ended up paying millions of dollars to almost 400 peaceful
protesters that you had advanced on with forceful means. And as
part of that legal settlement, the service police was required
to make very specific policy changes. Are you familiar with
that settlement?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record that 2015 settlement agreement.
At the top of page 8, that agreement requires the Park
Police to update its procedure to provide audible warnings to
protesters to disperse. And there are four significant parts of
that legally enforceable commitment that your agency made. The
first is officers must be positioned in the rear of the crowd,
so that they can actually hear the warnings that are given
before the police advance. The second is that they need to use
sound amplification as needed. And, third, that they need to
warn the protesters that they are in violation of a specific
law. There is a substantive requirement as part of that
warning. And fourth, maybe most significantly for June 1, the
arresting officers positioned in the rear of the crowd are
required to give a verbal and/or physical indication to the
officers in the front who are giving that warning, so that your
officers can confirm that it was audible and that it had been
heard by the protesters.
Were all of these procedures followed on June 1?
Mr. Monahan. The directives on June 1 were followed.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I just want to get your direct
answer, and you say that every one of those procedures was
followed.
I am going to ask to play a video that we believe suggests
otherwise, Mr. Chief. I would like to ask staff to play the
clip entitled Warning One.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Monahan, could you understand the warning
that was recorded in this video? Could you hear it? Was it
audible to you?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I could hear the warning. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. You must have superhuman hearing. Because I
don't think any of us could hear it. And wouldn't you agree,
just from own lying eyes, we could see protesters who were
clearly confused, who did not appear to be told that they were
about to be advanced on, who did not appear to be told that
they were in violation of a specific law, as your settlement
requires.
Do you feel that that was understood by those protesters as
evidenced by that video footage?
Mr. Monahan. I think when you take into account video
footage, there is context. And based on other video that I have
viewed from June 1 and specifically around this time frame when
the first warning was given, throughout the first warning
through the third warning, you can see a number of
demonstrators leave the area and heed the warning that was
given from the incident commander that----
Mr. Huffman. All right, well, Chief Monahan, we do look
forward to getting the evidence that backs up your account of
this.
But, Mr. Chair, from everything we have heard, from
everything we have seen, it sure appears as if the Park Police
ignored their own legal requirements in the settlement to
follow these procedures, almost as if they wanted the crowd to
be confused, so that they could go in with maximum force and
perhaps appease a president who just hours earlier had urged
police to act that way.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Let me recognize Mr.
Westerman for your 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Monahan, thank you for your testimony. This hearing
is about politics and I apologize to you and the rest of the
officers in the United States Park Police for having to endure
a political attack. This is not the first hearing we have had
on this; it probably won't be the last hearing.
If my colleagues across the aisle were concerned about
police reform, I don't think that their colleagues in the
Senate would have described Senator Tim Scott's bill as a token
bill. I don't think the Speaker would have dismissed it as
attempted murder or whatever words she used about Senator
Scott's bill.
We are here today to find out facts, not to play politics
with a serious situation. My colleagues are supporting
defunding the police. They seem to have no problem with
defacing public property. And we all agree that Americans are
allowed to protect peaceably, like the Constitution says. So,
the question is, were these peaceful protests or were they
violent protests?
You have testified that 50 of your officers were injured.
Can you describe some of those injuries?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. Like I said in my opening statement,
50 U.S. Park Police officers were injured between May 29 and
June 1. On May 29, we had 13 officers that were injured during
violent protests at Lafayette Park and 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue. Eleven of those injuries were blunt trauma related
injuries to the head, upper body, and lower body. One of those
injuries was sustained by a sergeant from the United States
Park Police, who was wearing this helmet here on the table. He
was struck in the helmet by a brick that was thrown at him by a
violent protester. And you can see the damage that had occurred
to the left side of this helmet that is sitting here on the
table. That officer was later hospitalized. To this date, he
has still not returned to work.
On May 30, there were 37 injuries up at the White House.
Twenty of those were for the U.S. Park Police, and those
injuries were blunt trauma related injuries to the head, upper
body, and lower body, the most significant of which was an
officer from the U.S. Park Police, who was on the line on the
north end of Lafayette Park, and he was struck in the testicles
by a protester who threw a brick and struck him in the groin.
He suffered a significant injury. He just returned to work this
past Sunday.
On May 31, we had 16 patient encounters of U.S. Park Police
personnel, six of those were blunt trauma related injuries to
the head, upper body, and lower body. And on June 1, we only
had one injury. An officer was punched in the face by a
protester when we were clearing H Street, and he suffered a
facial laceration.
Mr. Westerman. I find it hard to see how anybody could call
that a peaceful protest. And was the protocol followed to give
three warnings? And what kind of device was used to do that?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. The protocol was followed to give
three warnings, the first of which was given at 6:23 p.m. There
were three warnings given. And they were given utilizing a
long-range acoustic device, it is called an LRAD, and that is
what it stands for. That was the device used.
Mr. Westerman. I just want to get some things straight for
the record here. Did Attorney General Barr order the Park
Police to clear the square?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir, he did not.
Mr. Westerman. Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
order the Park Police to clear the square?
Mr. Monahan. No.
Mr. Westerman. Did anyone at the White House order the Park
Police to clear the square?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Did Secretary Bernhardt order the Park
Police to clear the square?
Mr. Monahan. No, he did not.
Mr. Westerman. It seems pretty cut and dry to me what
happened. I wish that Congress could work on renewing hope in
America, on restoring the America that we love, and work on
overcoming this pandemic and rebuilding our future, rather than
continuing to drag issues like this through the mud, when it is
clear that my colleagues across the aisle do not want to work
for solutions. A very thoughtful, bipartisan bill was put out
on police reform by Senator Scott and it was essentially
laughed at.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me now turn to the
Vice Chair of the Committee, Ms. Haaland, for any questions you
might have.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Monahan. I would
like to talk about the missing Park Police radio recordings
from June 1. Mr. Monahan, did the Park Police communicate over
radio with other agencies regarding the orders and coordination
of June 1 that we are talking about today?
Mr. Monahan. In terms of the radio transmissions made by
the United States Park Police, they were to other members of
the United States Park Police. We had face-to-face contact with
partner agencies on June 1.
Ms. Haaland. So, just to be clear, the radio interaction,
communication, was just between the Park Police, and any other
communications between other agencies were in person?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Haaland. OK. Is it standard procedure for Park Police
to record radio transmissions between each other, like this?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, standard procedure for every incident is
to have a record of any radio transmissions.
Ms. Haaland. And can you explain to us why the radio
transmissions should be recorded?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am. If you go back to September 2018,
the United States Park Police were utilizing an analog radio
system at the time. We were preparing to transition to a
digital radio format.
In September 2018, we experienced a critical failure in our
analogue radio system. We transitioned to the digital format.
When our radio technicians were conducting this transference,
only our main radio channel was configured to record. Our
administrative channel that we utilize for large special
events, such as the one on June 1, was not configured to record
at the time.
Ms. Haaland. So, it was not configured to record at the
time. Are there radio recordings of the Park Police for the
time period between May 29 and June 2 at all?
Mr. Monahan. For our normal operations, yes, but not for
the special event in the demonstration at the White House.
Ms. Haaland. And I'm sorry. Why is that?
Mr. Monahan. So, again, when we transitioned to our digital
radio system, the radio technicians that were setting up that
system only set up our main dispatch channel to record. It was
an error. They did not set up our administrative channel to
record.
Ms. Haaland. OK. So, that was an error you say?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, it was.
Ms. Haaland. OK. Were there any notes or logs of those
transmissions because there was an error in having those
communications recorded?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. For any special event, a large special
event or demonstration like the one on June 1, we establish a
written record or a written log of transmissions that are
utilized within the command bus to send out situational reports
or updates via e-mail.
So, that was done in this case.
Ms. Haaland. Can you provide any notes or logs of those
transmissions to the Committee please?
Mr. Monahan. I will work with the Department's Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs on any request that you
have.
Ms. Haaland. And is it regular practice to take such notes
or logs or does it only happen when you know the radio
recording is not working?
Mr. Monahan. That is a good question. As I mentioned
earlier, for large special events or demonstrations like we had
on June 1 and the days leading up to June 1, we established a
redundant process of having a written log.
Ms. Haaland. OK. So, is it standard procedure to record
radio transmissions, but there is no recording of radio traffic
from Park Police for June 1, which just happens to be the day
the Administration did a test run of the brutal crackdown on
protestors we continue to see now in cities across America?
And I would imagine having that recording would answer many
of the questions that we and the public have at this moment.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am, and I agree. I think every
incident should have a complete record, and in this instance,
we have a written record.
Ms. Haaland. OK. And you will provide that written record
to the Committee at your earliest convenience or make sure of
that?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. I will work with the Office of
Congressional Legislative Affairs on fulfilling your request.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
Regarding your radio recording technology--you are saying
it was not actually broken, it was just an error in making sure
that the recordings actually recorded. So, it was not set up
that way. It was not really broken. Is that correct?
Mr. Monahan. That is correct, and we did not recognize the
error until we attempted to pull the radio run on June 10. We
have since, as soon as we were alerted to the fact that it was
not configured to record, we have corrected that error.
Ms. Haaland. OK. And I am sorry. Whose fault was the error?
Mr. Monahan. If you go back to September 2018, the radio
technicians, it was an oversight on their part and they did not
configure the administrative channel to record.
Ms. Haaland. OK.
Mr. Monahan. And as I said, every incident should have a
complete record, and in this instance, we have a written log.
Ms. Haaland. OK. And right now the radio recordings are
working. Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am, that is correct.
Ms. Haaland. So, if we were to have a repeat of June 1, we
would have the recordings that you could send over to us?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. Our administrative channel is configured
to record, yes.
Ms. Haaland. OK. Thank you, Chairman. I am sorry. I yield.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Hice, you are recognized.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned the long-range acoustic device that was used.
What is the range of that device when it comes to warning the
crowd?
Mr. Monahan. Sir, it has been some time since I read the
actual specs of the long-range acoustic device, but I want to
say it is 600 meters.
Dr. Hice. OK. Were the protesters within that range?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. I would estimate that they were where we
had it set up, which was we were in the center of the park and
on the northeast section of the center of the park, and I would
say we were within 45 meters of the protesters.
Dr. Hice. So, they were in range of hearing.
I would also note that protesters must have the ability to
leave an area. What courses of actions did the Park Police
consider when discussing that issue?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. When implementing our plan to clear
the north side of Lafayette Park and H Street, we moved the
crowd from east to west, and then their path of exit was either
north on 16th Street toward I, India, Street or continued west
to 17th and H or Connecticut and H.
Dr. Hice. So, that is the direction that the officers were
pushing the protesters?
Mr. Monahan. That was the movement from east to west,
correct.
Dr. Hice. OK. Were the protesters in any way prevented from
leaving the Square by police?
Mr. Monahan. No, they were not.
Dr. Hice. OK. You mentioned earlier the various acts of
violence, the projectiles that were being thrown, and the
injuries that were sustained. There was everything from frozen
water bottles to bricks, caustic liquids.
In a weekend of violent protests, you mentioned 51 officers
injured. Of course, we know about the arsons at the St. John's
Church and so forth.
I would also note from intelligence reports that there were
calls by police officers, again, regarding violence against
them. There were also caches found of glass bottles, baseball
bats, and metal poles, along the way.
I am curious from the time from then to now has there been
any type of investigation to see whether or not there were any
specific groups or a group that was involved in organizing all
of this.
Mr. Monahan. Yes. The United States Park Police has
coordinated with a number of our Federal partners in follow-up
investigations on some of the violence that we saw, the
assaults on officers. We have been successful in obtaining a
number of arrest warrants for individuals that were either
involved in assaults against police officers or damage to park
resources.
In terms of a nexus to larger groups, that is an ongoing
effort.
Dr. Hice. When do you think that may be determined?
Mr. Monahan. I don't know if I could say as I sit here
today. Again, these are ongoing investigations, and as we
gather more information and as additional arrests are made, all
of the intel that is gathered from those arrests contributes to
any nexus to a larger effort.
Dr. Hice. It just appears that in some other places
throughout the country there are specific groups that are
behind it. I was curious if that was the same here, but that
investigation is still underway is what you are saying?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Dr. Hice. Recently there was a video that was circulated
that shows Representative Jerry Nadler, of course, Chairman of
the Judiciary, stating that many of these protests were, in
essence, a myth as far as the violence within the protests.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir, I would not agree. I think based on
the level of violence and sustained violence that we saw
beginning on May 29 through June 1, this was one of the most
violent protests that I have been a part of in my 23 years with
the United States Park Police.
Dr. Hice. One of the most. What would be another one that
would rank up there in your memory?
Mr. Monahan. The Occupy DC demonstrations from several
years ago and then the World Bank demonstrations.
Dr. Hice. OK. It is just amazing to me, as Representative
Westerman mentioned, that this is just nothing more than
political theater to come here and somehow pretend as though
these were peaceful protesters where the evidence is abundant,
everything from arson to vandalism to 51 injured officers. This
was anything but peaceful, and the reason it did not sustain
that kind of momentum in Washington, DC, is because the Park
Police and others got involved to put a stop to it.
So, I want to thank you for your service in that regard in
maintaining the safety of Washington, DC, and beyond. We are
appreciative of that.
And, Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I do have a letter from
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers that I would ask unanimous
consent to have submitted to the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, sir. I yield.
The Chairman. Mr. Lowenthal. You are recognized, sir.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Acting Chief Monahan, for being here.
The questions that I have, Mr. Monahan, have to do with the
reasons given for clearing the protesters from Lafayette
Square. I think you mentioned that the reason was that the area
was needing be cleared to put up fencing to seal off Lafayette
Park and create a new perimeter.
When was that decision made?
And was there any specific time when this fencing was
supposed to go up?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. The decision to pursue other options
based on the increased level of violence that we saw beginning
on May 29 was initially discussed Saturday evening into Sunday
morning.
Based on a number of factors, we knew that we were likely
going to have on Monday a late report time for our personnel,
but also a late arrival time for the fencing.
The fencing did arrive on Monday in the late afternoon. At
3 p.m. on Monday, the site manager arrived. At 3:30 p.m., the
employees arrived. The fencing arrived at 5:15 p.m. and then
was staged on 17th Street by the United States Secret Service.
As I spoke earlier, at 6:23 p.m., we gave the first of
three warnings. The initial movement to clear the north side of
Lafayette Park and H Street was commenced at 6:30 p.m., and it
was concluded at 6:50 p.m.
At 6:55 p.m., the Secret Service escorted the trucks with
the fencing inside the White House area and staged them on the
west side of Lafayette Park at Jackson Place. They began to
install the fence at 7:30 p.m., and the fencing build-out was
completed at 12:50 a.m.
Dr. Lowenthal. Let me understand. You said this operation
about the fencing, that its happening in the early evening was
inevitable, given that you needed both the resources and the
fencing to do this.
Was there ever any discussion that it would be better to
start this process of fencing after the curfew or at night to
start it instead of in the evening when the crowd was going to
be at its peak?
What is the standard of timing for setting up security
fencing and a new perimeter?
Mr. Monahan. In this particular instance, we were not
necessarily operating on a timeline. We were operating on the
need for logistical strength in the terms of having ample
resources to safely implement our plan and then having the
fencing in place.
In terms of the curfew, that was not something that factors
into our decision making. And if you look at the level of
violence that we were subjected to over the three previous
operational periods, it increased throughout the day and as
nightfall came upon us, it increased even from that point on.
So, if the previous night was any indication, which was the
first night where we had the curfew, waiting until curfew did
not appear likely that the rioters in the crowd would
peacefully disburse.
Dr. Lowenthal. So, let me just understand this. In his
statement, Major DeMarco also mentioned that shortly after
Attorney General Barr left Lafayette Square at 6:20 p.m., after
conferring with the Park Police, the inaudible warnings began.
Shortly after the clearing finished in a fast paced and
rushed manner, about 30 minutes later, the President was having
his photo op at about 7:05 p.m.
Now, I need to understand. Either the clearing was for a
photo op or that is an amazing coincidence, do you not think,
Mr. Monahan?
Mr. Monahan. No, I do not think it is a coincidence. Our
operation was solely centered around the clearing of H Street
and the north end of Lafayette Park to de-escalate the
sustained level of violence that we saw over the previous 3
days and then again on June 1.
In order to do that, in order to successfully de-escalate
that, a common practice is to install physical barriers or
boundaries between protesters and law enforcement. And in this
case, the best avenue to do that was to install that anti-scale
fencing. And to my point, if you fast-forward to June 2, we saw
a dramatic decrease in violent behavior at Lafayette Park on
June 2.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I am going to yield back. But
it just strikes me as an amazing coincidence. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, you
are recognized.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my 5
minutes to Mr. Hice.
Dr. Hice. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Let's talk
about this--the Democrats' second witness submitted written
testimony that the materials to erect the fence did not arrive
on the scene until around 9 p.m. Can you confirm that
testimony? If not, what time did the material arrive and the
fence start being erected?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. Mr. DeMarco was mistaken. The
fencing--as I said earlier, the site manager arrived at 3 p.m.
The employees arrived at 3:30 p.m. The first truck with the
fencing arrived at 5:15 p.m. But they were staged on 17th
Street south of Pennsylvania Avenue. They were escorted into
the White House complex at 6:55 p.m. And that was after we
cleared the north end of Lafayette Park and H Street. And at
7:30 p.m., they began to build the fence.
Dr. Hice. OK.
Mr. Monahan. 7:30 p.m.
Dr. Hice. All right. So, the testimony of the next witness
is not accurate as it relates to the fence. Since the time that
the fence was put up, how many officers have been injured?
Mr. Monahan. After the fencing was built out, we have zero
injuries from U.S. Park Police officers.
Dr. Hice. All right. Why does Lafayette Park remain closed?
Mr. Monahan. The fencing was taken down shortly after. I
think June 10, it was taken down. We saw sort of a second phase
of violence in DC that was directed at statues and other
Federal property. And Lafayette Park was closed down through
the 31st of this month in an effort to restore and repair some
of the damage that was done in Lafayette Park.
Dr. Hice. It seems clear to me that fencing is effective in
deterring vandals. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Monahan. In this case, just based on the geography, it
was a meaningful and deliberate move and a change in tactics on
our part in furtherance of de-escalation. So, yes, it did work.
Dr. Hice. Yes, it did work. You had zero injuries since
then. I think the evidence speaks for itself. Is there
currently a fence around St. John's church?
Mr. Monahan. There is anti-scale fencing around a portion
of St. John's church, yes.
Dr. Hice. Has there been any further damage or vandalism
done to the church since the fence was erected around the
church?
Mr. Monahan. Not to my knowledge.
Dr. Hice. Not to my knowledge either. Who requested this
fence to be erected?
Mr. Monahan. The concept or the idea of utilizing anti-
scale fencing was a conversation that we had between the U.S.
Park Police and our counterparts with the United States Secret
Service. And, again, that discussion began Saturday evening
into Sunday morning.
Dr. Hice. According to your testimony, the fence was a key
tactic that served to greatly reduce the violent behavior of
bad actors. And from your testimony here this morning, it was
effective in accomplishing that strategic mission. The Park
Police has an obligation to protect the safety of peaceful
demonstrators while, at the same time, maintaining law and
order. We get that. And we have to protect our law enforcement
officers. So, how does the erection of the fence in this case
and in other cases help accomplish these obligations?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. It is a good question. It is a physical
barrier. And what we saw on the days preceding it, so on the
29th, 30th and the 31st, the barriers that we had between
protesters and law enforcement in the park were two rows of
bike rack, which is maybe 4 feet high. And we had numerous
attempts, successful attempts, of demonstrators jumping over
the bike rack that was lined with police tape to not cross.
Erecting an anti-scale fence was a logical move and a
change in tactic to prevent those types of behaviors. It did
not prevent projectiles from continuing to be thrown in the
days subsequent to that. But it provided a suitable barrier
between law enforcement and those bad actors that were showing
their violence toward law enforcement.
Dr. Hice. Well, let me ask you this in my final question
here. Who specifically were the personnel involved in the
actual installation of the fence? Were the national guardsmen
who are part of the detail installing the fence? Who was it?
Mr. Monahan. No. The fencing company itself installed the
fence.
Dr. Hice. OK. Thank you very much. I yield.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me now recognize
Mr. Gallego for his questions.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Acting Chief, who
ordered the clearing on June 1? Who told the men to advance?
Mr. Monahan. I am sorry. Your second question?
Mr. Gallego. Who told the men to advance on the crowd?
Mr. Monahan. The order was given by the Incident Commander
from the United States Park Police.
Mr. Gallego. Great. Were you on site?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I was.
Mr. Gallego. Did you have any conversations with Attorney
General Barr on site?
Mr. Monahan. No, I did not.
Mr. Gallego. You did not interact with him at all when he
came outside of the White House?
Mr. Monahan. I saw him in the park, but I did not have any
interaction with him.
Mr. Gallego. OK. So, tell me again why you didn't wait
until 7 p.m., because that actually sounds totally illogical to
me. At 7 p.m., you could probably actually make a statement
saying now this is an illegal operation. You need to disperse
because there is a curfew. But you decided to do it,
coincidentally, 40 minutes earlier, because somehow you think
that de-escalates.
Mr. Monahan. Yes. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we were
not operating on a timetable.
Mr. Gallego. But why didn't you? It actually makes more
logical sense for you to wait until 7 p.m.
Mr. Monahan. I would respectfully disagree. And I say that
based on our experience the night before--when the 7 p.m.
curfew arrived the night before, no one left the area.
Mr. Gallego. But that day, you only had one injury. What
time was that injury at? You testified June 1, one injury. What
time was that injury at?
Mr. Monahan. The injury on June 1 was during the clearing
operation of H Street.
Mr. Gallego. So, that whole day was peaceful protesting
until the clearing. And, yet, you decided that somehow there
was going to be violence. So, therefore, you initiated
something before the 7 p.m. curfew.
Mr. Monahan. No, sir. That is inaccurate. What I stated
earlier was that we saw violence throughout the operational
period.
Mr. Gallego. I am not asking that. I am asking on June 1.
Mr. Monahan. Yes.
Mr. Gallego. Let me give you an example. When I was in the
Marine Corps and I had to clear all these cities, I had to
react to what was happening that day. I may have gotten shot
at, thrown at, tried to be mortared, IED'd--actually, it
happened every day. The next day, I went out and patrolled like
a professional. On June 1, by your testimony, you had largely
peaceful protesters up until the time you actually forcibly
tried to remove them. Your decision-making process should have
been based on the ground on what was happening on that day.
Mr. Monahan. All of our decisions on June 1 were based on
an on-the-ground assessment of the level of violence that was
directed at law enforcement.
Mr. Gallego. But not of that day.
Mr. Monahan. My testimony today----
Mr. Gallego. But not of that day.
Mr. Monahan. No, sir. That is inaccurate.
Mr. Gallego. That is very unprofessional if you were
actually telling me that you made decisions of what to do June
1, and you decided that that date required a level of
escalation because, later on, one person would get injured once
you start moving through the crowd.
Mr. Monahan. My testimony to you today is our operation on
June 1 was solely based on an effort to de-escalate the
violence. And it was based on an effort to provide for the
safety of those----
Mr. Gallego. No, no. You claimed that you want to de-
escalate the violence by putting the fence up, which I actually
agree with. That is actually a very good move. And I think that
was important to actually de-escalating. But de-escalating the
violence does not mean sending men swinging their batons and
using pepper spray or CS gas, whatever you guys claimed it to
be, 40 minutes prior to a curfew. It just doesn't make logical
sense. Anybody who--and I actually have been trained in de-
escalation. I have been trained in riot control also.
The one thing you try to do is you try to find the moments
to actually de-escalate. So, 7 p.m. when the curfew is about to
hit, when you are also probably going to have some backing at
least maybe from the Washington Police Department, would have
been the most logical sense. Instead, we have this weird
scenario that you are telling me that there was so much
violence that day that nobody was injured, by the way, until
you guys advanced on them that you had to make that decision
then. It makes no sense. If I had acted this way when I was in
the Marine Corps, I probably would have been busted down a
couple of reps. Also, there were two police officers that
assaulted Australian TV news crew. Are they being held
responsible?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. The incident on June 1 involving the
Australian media is being investigated by the Office of
Professional Responsibility for the United States Park Police.
That investigation is underway at this time.
Mr. Gallego. Did you see the video yourself?
Mr. Monahan. I have seen the video, yes.
Mr. Gallego. Was the conduct professional that these police
officers were engaging in?
Mr. Monahan. It is an ongoing investigation, and it would
be inappropriate for me to comment on that officially.
Mr. Gallego. And just to be clear, your police officers
that day, on June 1, they were all Park Police officers. People
weren't brought in for ICE or DHS. That was all Park Police?
Mr. Monahan. On June 1, we were operating under unified
command with the United States Secret Service.
Mr. Gallego. No, I get that. The National Guard was here.
Who were the people that were assaulting and pushing forward on
the protesters? Were they all Park Police?
Mr. Monahan. No. The other agencies that have assisted with
the operation and the clearing of H Street and the north end of
Lafayette Park----
Mr. Gallego. So, you cleared protesters with people that
have different standards, different procedures for clearing,
because you train your Park Police all along one standard--
right?--in terms of riot control. Did you know what standards
and procedures those other elements were used to?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. They receive the same training that we
do.
Mr. Gallego. They do?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. OK. Can you provide documentation for that?
Mr. Monahan. I am sorry?
Mr. Gallego. Can you provide documentation for that?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, any request you have, I will facilitate
and work with the Office of Congressional Legislative Affairs
from the Department on addressing.
Mr. Gallego. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Cox, you are recognized.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Chairman. And thank you so much
for being here today, Chief. The hearing today isn't so much
about whether the fence went up, or people were painting in the
park, or peaceful protests--well, in fact, it really was
peaceful protests--it is whether or not that the Park Police
and yourself really have a duty and obligation and a fealty to
the Constitution. Chief, I am sure that you and your officers
take note to protect and defend the Constitution.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cox. And if you were given an order to forcefully bear
Blacks or women from voting at polling places, would you abide
by that order?
Mr. Monahan. I am sorry, sir. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Cox. If you were given an order to forcefully bear
women or African-Americans from polling places, would you abide
by that order?
Mr. Monahan. I am not sure I understand your question, sir.
Mr. Cox. Let me ask you another question. If you were given
an order to have your officers forcefully take firearms away
from law-abiding citizens, would you abide by that order?
Mr. Monahan. Again, I don't know the context in which you
are asking the question, I guess----
Mr. Cox. It is going to get down to the point that--if you
and your officers are asked to violate the very First Amendment
of the Constitution which allows people to peacefully assemble,
would you abide by that order?
Mr. Monahan. On June 1, there were peaceful demonstrators
on H Street, and there were bad actors on H Street. When we
gave the first of three warnings, those were warnings that we
were clearing this area for safety reasons and it was a
temporary closure. Once that third warning was given, everyone
on the north end of Lafayette Park and H Street was required to
vacate that area. When we did the operation from east to west
to clear H Street, we gave them avenues of exit.
Mr. Cox. Well, thanks very much. We have heard that
explanation. Now, we are going to hear from the next witness--
right?--that what they were asked to do was contravene their
oath to the Constitution. All right? And what we are being
asked today, and what you are basically testifying to, is that
there was no correlation at all between your orders to clear
the square and with the President's photo op. Now, would you
agree or tell me otherwise? Did the park need to be cleared in
order for the President to take his photo op?
Mr. Monahan. Our goal that day was to----
Mr. Cox. No, no. Would you answer that question? Did that
park need to be cleared? Did that area need to be vacated by
any other citizens for the President to take his photo?
Mr. Monahan. We did not clear the park for a photo op.
Mr. Cox. No, no, no.
Mr. Monahan. We cleared the park for public safety reasons.
Mr. Cox. No, that is not the question, whether or not you
did. Did it need to be cleared? In your professional opinion--
and you are not with the Secret Service. But did that area need
to be cleared in order for the President to march from the
White House to Lafayette Square to take a photo in front of St.
John's Square?
Mr. Monahan. I don't think I am the person to answer that
question. Our focus was on public safety that day.
Mr. Cox Well, you are a national citizen. You have been
around. Would you think that the place needed to be cleared?
And it was just a convenient coincidence.
Mr. Monahan. I am only here to speak to----
Mr. Cox. You see, I mean, I hope you can appreciate how--I
mean, it begs to reason that the place would have to be
cleared. And all of a sudden, as my colleague, Mr. Lowenthal
was saying, that just magically and very coincidentally that
area was cleared. And you just happened to be doing that
because fencing absolutely had to go up right at 6:30 p.m.
because you have been waiting because contractors were making
overtime.
Mr. Monahan. Our focus that day was to install that
fencing. And as I spoke earlier, the timing of that was
somewhat----
Mr. Cox. So, what you are absolutely testifying--and I'd
like you to make the statement that there was absolutely no
correlation, no direction to clear the square for the
President's photo op?
Mr. Monahan. There is 100 percent zero correlation between
our operation and the President's visit to the church.
Mr. Cox. OK. And what would the President have done if the
square hadn't been cleared? Would he have gone out there?
Mr. Monahan. I don't know if I can answer that question,
respectfully, sir.
Mr. Cox. OK. And, as I said, we are going to hear from our
next witness about why he has come forward to testify today
because what he was asked to do is to contravene his oath to
the Constitution. Do your officers ever get any training when
they are put into these types of situations, when they are
asked to contravene their oath and their duties to the
Constitution when they are given an order that they can't abide
by?
Mr. Monahan. I believe every action taken by the United
States Park Police on June 1 is----
Mr. Cox. No, no. Are they ever given any training with
regard to that situation when they are put into an untenable
situation like that?
Mr. Monahan. I wouldn't characterize the situation as
untenable.
Mr. Cox. OK. Thanks so much for your time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gosar, you are
recognized, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Well, this is like living in
Groundhog's Day, an alternative universe. The other side is on
a fishing expedition here, trying to get you to say something
very different, Chief. Now, real quick question to you, a quick
yes or no. As your officers worked to clear Lafayette Square,
were they aware that a mob had attempted to burn down St.
John's Church?
Mr. Monahan. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Is that an exercise of the First Amendment,
burning down a church?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir. It is not.
Dr. Gosar. Hmm, interesting. So, now, in Lafayette Square,
your officers were facing off against violent anarchists who
spent the better part of several days there, true?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. That is accurate.
Dr. Gosar. Defacing the World War II Memorial, a
remembrance of a grateful nation to all who served actually
during the fighting, fascism, damaging the Lincoln Memorial, a
tribute to the Republican president who led a nation to end
slavery and saving our union, tearing down monuments around the
city and attempting to burn down and deface the historic St.
John's Church. Meanwhile, as your officers on foot attempted to
push these anarchists away from the White House, their real
target to destroy and deface, they were pelted with water
bottles, fireworks, and called some of the most vile,
disgusting names directly to their faces.
Yet, at all times, your officers behaved, by all reports,
responsibly and worked in a tremendous professional manner. Now
that the area has been cleared, I have a few questions about
the statues on Lafayette Square. Chief, counter to the
narrative being pushed by the media, Lafayette Square was
cleared in order to allow for a fence to be erected. The fence
was put up as a means to enhance security at the square. In the
time since the fence has been put up, how many officers have
been injured?
Mr. Monahan. There have been no injuries sustained by the
United States Park Police since the fence was put up on June 1.
Dr. Gosar. Once again, I want to ask why does Lafayette
Square remain closed.
Mr. Monahan. Currently, it is closed due to ongoing
restoration efforts and damage assessments based on the damage
to the statues and other areas within the park, to include the
comfort station that was burned down in the days preceding June
1.
Dr. Gosar. So, once again, the First Amendment, does it
allow you to desecrate, destroy, and defame public property?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir. It does not.
Dr. Gosar. Wow. But I keep hearing that it is a peaceful
demonstration. Do you keep hearing that too?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. That is that alternative universe again. Is
there currently a fence around St. John's Church, the church in
which a fire was lit the night before the square was cleared?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. There is currently fencing around the
front of the church.
Dr. Gosar. Who requested that fence to be erected?
Mr. Monahan. Metropolitan Police from DC.
Dr. Gosar. Since the fence has been put up, has there been
any further destruction or vandalism of the church?
Mr. Monahan. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So, according to your written testimony, the
fence was a key tactic that served to greatly reduce the
violent behavior of the bad actors. And that violence dropped
off dramatically. The Park Police has an obligation to protect
the safety of peaceful demonstrators, maintain law and order,
and keep our law enforcement officers safe. How does a fence
help promote those obligations?
Mr. Monahan. I am sorry, the last part?
Dr. Gosar. How does the fence help you keep those
obligations?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, so, I mean, based on the previous day's
violence, it was clear to us that the longer we waited to
install the fence, the likelihood that the situation would get
worse on June 1. We saw acts of violence on June 1 throughout
the day. We saw projectiles being thrown at officers. We had
angry protesters and rioters attempt to, and in some cases,
jump over the double row of bike rack on the north side of the
park.
Our assessment from those that were on the ground who
witnessed the previous day's violence and were faced with the
violence in front of them on that day was that the aggression
from the crowd, the increased aggression that got even worse
after 7 p.m. and the curfew even though we were not abiding by
a curfew, was that to erect that fence was a logical next step
for de-escalation.
Dr. Gosar. No, I think everybody here at the dais would say
that we want to make sure to protect a citizen's right to
protest peacefully. Can you describe the typical role Park
Police plays during these protests and marches?
Mr. Monahan. It is our goal--excuse me. Our goal for any
demonstration is to provide for the safety of those that are
there to peacefully assemble, to protect the resources, to
maintain law and order, to ensure that any lawful demonstration
can continue uninterrupted but also to ensure the safety of our
personnel.
Dr. Gosar. What we are seeing is anarchists. We are seeing
desecration and hiding behind people claiming for peaceful
assembly. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Levin, you are recognized.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record a New York Times article from June 18,
2020, entitled, ``Park Police Head Had Been Accused of Illegal
Searches and Unreliable Testimony.'' This is an article about
Mr. Monahan.
Mr. Monahan, I want to get your reaction to additional
video from June 1. These clips show the moments immediately
before and then during the law enforcement surge around 6:30
p.m., a half hour before the Washington, DC curfew went into
effect. Please pay particular attention to whether the police
were responding to any actual physical threats from the crowd,
the speed and aggression of the police surge, and the weapons
officers used on the protesters. Can the Committee staff please
play the clips?
[Video shown.]
Mr. Levin. I believe there is one more.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Levin. Mr. Monahan, our time is limited, so I ask that
you please answer these questions with a simple yes or no. Were
the officers that we saw surging against the crowd and
assaulting a news crew? Yes or no? The officers you saw in
those clips, were they surging against the crowd and assaulting
a news crew? Yes or no?
Mr. Monahan. So, again, as to the----
Mr. Levin. That is not yes or no, Mr. Monahan. I am just
asking you, yes or no.
Mr. Monahan. And respectfully, I don't think I can answer
it with a yes or no.
Mr. Levin. So, it is your contention they weren't surging
against the crowd? They weren't assaulting the news crew? A
picture speaks a thousand words.
Mr. Monahan. Sure. And I think the video shows a moment in
time. As to the second video, I will not comment on it. It is
an ongoing investigation.
Mr. Levin. Yes. I heard you say that. Did the clip show any
violence from the protesters before the officers surged on
them? Simple yes or no.
Mr. Monahan. Again, I don't think there is a simple yes or
no. If you look at the first video that you showed, it has some
content----
Mr. Levin. I think we all saw the video and I think you
would acknowledge that there was no such violence. And the
Administration has contradicted itself on whether the alleged
violence was actually the reason for the use of force. Other
statements, including from Attorney General Barr, said the area
was cleared to move the perimeter one block. I think we have
seen statements that water bottles and such were thrown. But it
is obviously not justification for such a response. Did you see
the officers shove protesters with their shields in that video?
Again, simple yes or no.
Mr. Monahan. I saw the video that you showed, and it shows
officers clearing H Street.
Mr. Levin. So, that is a yes. We are getting somewhere.
That is good. Did you see officers attack reporters, one of
whom was an Australian correspondent, Amelia Brace, who
testified at our last hearing, even as they tried to get away?
Again, yes or no?
Mr. Monahan. Again, respectfully, I won't comment on an
ongoing investigation.
Mr. Levin. Well, it was on the video that that happened,
and we heard from Ms. Brace that it happened. Did you see
officers throw or fire chemical munitions into the crowd?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I did.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for acknowledging that. And did
officers throw flashbang or Stinger Ball Grenades into the
crowd?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. And our rules of engagement dictated on
June 1 that we would only use force if we were met with violent
resistance.
Mr. Levin. And did we see any of that violent resistance in
those videos, Mr. Monahan?
Mr. Monahan. Again, looking at a video----
Mr. Levin. It is a simple yes or no question.
Mr. Monahan. Not in the context of the video that you
showed.
Mr. Levin. So, that is a no. So, are you willing to tell
this Committee and the American people that the force those
officers used against the crowd was not excessive and
unjustified?
Mr. Monahan. The use of force that the United States Park
Police employed on June 1 was in line with our policies and
procedures.
Mr. Levin. Well, I heard you in your introduction say that
this was tremendous restraint used by your officers. And I just
find that hard to believe. But do you stand by that statement
based on the video we just saw that this was tremendous
restraint?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. I do.
Mr. Levin. Well, I will just remind my fellow colleagues of
the title of that New York Times article from June 18 and ask
you to read it. With that, I will yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize Mr.
Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Monahan, for being here today where we finally get to have a
dialogue with you about the events of June 1. My first question
relates to the first video clip that I think Mr. Huffman had
played at the beginning of the hearing. Did you see any
violence on the part of the protesters in that brief clip?
Mr. Monahan. The video that was shown----
Mr. Garcia. Yes or no, the first clip.
Mr. Monahan. It captures a moment in time, and in that
clip--you would have to play it again for----
Mr. Garcia. It was a peaceful assembly that we saw per that
clip. You mentioned that on June 1, there was actually only one
officer who regretfully had to be treated because of some
injury, not 50 as you had stated previously over a several-day
period. Do you know the circumstances of that treatment, what
led to those injuries or his treatment?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. His injury was sustained during the
clearing operation of H Street. During that clearing operation,
he was engaged in a violent interaction with a protester, and
he was punched in the face by the protester.
Mr. Garcia. Fair enough. One officer. Do you know the
approximate size of the crowd that had assembled at Lafayette
Square?
Mr. Monahan. It varied throughout the day. I would say----
Mr. Garcia. At about 6:30 p.m., sir.
Mr. Monahan. I would say several thousand people.
Mr. Garcia. One thousand, 50,000?
Mr. Monahan. It was less than 50,000. I would estimate
1,000 to 3,000.
Mr. Garcia. Good. Any guesstimate of what percent of those
assembled were behaving in violent ways?
Mr. Monahan. No, I don't. But the only thing that the----
Mr. Garcia. Let the record show that you do not know.
With respect to the use of tear gas, are you aware that
tear gas is a chemical weapon banned in war?
Mr. Monahan. No, I am not aware of that.
Mr. Garcia. I am glad we are having this conversation.
We have all seen the chilling images of peaceful
demonstrators being attacked and gassed by Federal law
enforcement officers, including those under your command, and
it should never again be used against demonstrators, but
especially not during a pandemic.
That is why Representatives Takano and Ocasio have joined
me in a bill that seeks to ban the use of this chemical agent,
especially during a pandemic against peaceful demonstrators.
Mr. Monahan, do you believe in the First Amendment and
people's rights to organize peacefully?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir, of course I do.
Mr. Garcia. I am glad to hear that.
Do you believe that people are reasonably upset over the
deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black lives
taken by police officers?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garcia. And do you believe that demonstrators are in
their right to take to the streets after persistent police
brutality against communities of color?
Mr. Monahan. I believe that individuals have the right to
peacefully assemble and demonstrate, yes.
Mr. Garcia. Then why were you on board with the eagerness
to disburse the crowd when it was maybe 30 minutes before the
curfew was to take effect, a curfew that people were quite well
aware of by the time of this violent encounter in Lafayette
Square?
What was so urgent about things when we saw a video that
the protesters were, in fact, largely peaceful?
And one of the witnesses that appeared before this
Committee, the head of the church that was referred to earlier,
said that they were participating and the members of that
church were participating in peaceful actions, and that it
included many gatherings of family members, including children
that were participating in their right to free speech.
Mr. Monahan. To your first question, the United States Park
Police did not use tear gas on June 1.
To your second question, were there people there peacefully
demonstrating? Yes, but there were a number of bad actors, and
once the three warnings were given, everyone there needed to
vacate that area.
Mr. Garcia. But were there other chemical agents that your
forces used?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, our rules of engagement specifically
prohibited the use of CS gas on June 1. We utilized pepper
balls. We utilized smoke canisters, which do not have an
irritant in them, and we also used Stinger balls.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much.
I think my time has run out, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
The Chairman. I recognize Ms. Velazquez for her time.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Monahan, did you have any communications from President
Trump, Vice President Pence, Attorney General Barr, or
Secretary Esper encouraging you not to testify on June 29?
Mr. Monahan. No, ma'am.
Ms. Velazquez. Have you ever had conversations with a
subordinate encouraging them not to cooperate with this
Committee's investigation?
Mr. Monahan. No.
Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Monahan, the USPP has a history of
engaging in abuse of powers during peaceful protests. A 2015
court ordered settlement required the USPP to provide three
audible warnings at least 2 minutes apart to disburse crowds
and identify avenues for protesters to scatter.
Did you comply with that, to identify audibly and avenues
for protesters to scatter?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am. As we discussed earlier, there
were three warnings given, and in terms of an avenue to leave
the area, the way the crowd was moved, they could either go
north on 16th Street to I, India, Street or continue west on H
Street to either Connecticut Avenue or 17th Street.
Ms. Velazquez. That does not match the testimony of
previous witnesses nor the testimony that will be provided by
Major Adam DeMarco regarding audible warnings.
And we just saw the video that was played, and to say
otherwise is just really outrageous. I was watching it. I
couldn't hear anything. The people that were there even said,
``What were they saying? What do they mean?''
Mr. Monahan, you also watched the video of the female
reporter, Ms. Brace. My question to you is--does any action by
her, and she was standing there, warrant being attacked and
shot at with rubber bullets?
Mr. Monahan. So, ma'am, I take seriously any allegation of
misuse of force by any of our members, and we have policies and
procedures that direct how those things are handled.
In this instance, there is a current internal affairs
investigation that is underway. That is, as I said, it is
currently under investigation. If at the end of that
investigation there is a finding----
Ms. Velazquez. OK. I am asking you, sir, reclaiming my
time, I am asking you. The video that was played, you watched
it. I watched it. Were there any actions committed by Ms. Brace
that required the type of action and attack by the police?
Mr. Monahan. Again, as I stated earlier, I will not comment
on an ongoing investigation. I will just commit to that we will
hold our officers accountable for any actions that are deemed a
violation of force policy, and that investigation is still
underway.
Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Monahan, are you aware that COVID-19
affects the respiratory system?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Velazquez. So, why would you use any type of chemical
agent in the midst of a pandemic?
Mr. Monahan. And, again, as I stated earlier, our rules of
engagement on June 1 were that we would not use any force
unless we were met with violent resistance from the protesters.
Ms. Velazquez. My question to you is--why, knowing that
this country is dealing with a pandemic, and one of the areas
known to be impacted by COVID-19 is the respiratory system--
knowing that, why did you use such chemical agents against
peaceful protesters?
Mr. Monahan. And, again, the use of force that we utilized
was in response to the violent behavior exhibited by a number
of bad actors that were in the midst of others that were there
to peacefully assemble.
Ms. Velazquez. Well, as I mentioned to you before, sir,
witnesses who came before this Committee, and Major Adam
DeMarco, they are all testifying that those were peaceful
protesters. That was covered widely by the media, widely. The
Nation was watching while they saw how the police attacked
peaceful protesters.
Immediately following the incident, the Arlington County
Board Chair said that she was appalled that their corporation
agreement with the Trump administration has been abused to
endanger their and others' safety for the photo op, and media
reports indicate that the USPP directly misled the Arlington
County Police about the nature of the operation.
How would you respond to the comments made by the Board
Chair and the allegations that the USPP misled the Arlington
County Police about the nature of the operation?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am. The United States Park Police
enjoys a very long and storied history with the Arlington
County Police Department in terms of mutual aid over the last
numerous years.
In terms of their assistance and their vital assistance to
our operation on June 1, that was a request that was made
through mutual aid. In terms of----
Ms. Velazquez. Sir, why do you think that the Chair of the
Board is saying that you misled them? Is she implying that you
lied to them?
Voice. Mr. Chairman, has the time expired?
The Chairman. Yes. You may answer the last question.
Ms. Velazquez. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chief Monahan, for being here today.
I come from a more rural part of the world, northeastern
Pennsylvania, where we haven't had these types of violent
interactions. In fact, all of our George Floyd demonstrations
and protests have been peaceful, have been joined in with by
the local police forces.
So, this is something new for me to jump into the world of
these things, but I want to see if we can agree on some things.
I suspect we will.
You mentioned before that you said that you believe every
incident should have a complete record, right?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. And the idea is not only to do the job, but
to improve the way you do the job, to make sure regrettable
incidents are not repeated, right?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. That is a fair statement, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. And to do that what we are looking for is
accountability. I think you used the word yourself, Chief. We
want accountability on the part of our police forces, including
the Park Police, right?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I would agree.
Mr. Cartwright. And to do that, it is fitting and proper
for us to engage in these exercises where we flesh out the
facts of incidences. Is that fair?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. So, anybody who says that to flesh out
the facts of a violent confrontation between police and
protesters is some sort of political charade, some kind of a
show, that is not necessarily true. What we are looking for is
fleshing out the facts to find accountability, and that is a
good thing, is it not, Chief?
Mr. Monahan. In terms of fleshing out for accountability,
yes, I would agree.
Mr. Cartwright. Absolutely. Well, all right. What I want to
do is I want to go over some of your testimony from this
morning. Again, I thank you for being here and going through
this.
One of the things I wanted to clear up was Congressman
Lowenthal asked you a question about whether it was a
coincidence between the timing of the clearing of Lafayette
Square and the photo op that the White House engaged in, and
you said it was not a coincidence, and I don't think that is
what you meant, and I want to give you a chance to clear that
up.
Mr. Monahan. Our decision and the timing of implementing
our plan to clear the north side of Lafayette Park and H Street
was irrespective of any decision from the White House or the
President to visit the park, to visit the church. It was
completely irrespective of that.
Mr. Cartwright. That is what I thought your position was.
It was a complete coincidence, according to your testimony.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. I also wanted to talk about the timing
a little bit. What time was the curfew for, 7 p.m.?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. It was a 7 p.m. curfew.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. And what did the curfew call for,
Chief?
Mr. Monahan. No members of the public could be out after 7
p.m.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. And how was that communicated to the
public?
Mr. Monahan. I believe it was an order from the Mayor's
Office in DC.
Mr. Cartwright. And was that communicated clearly and
cogently so that people and the public understood what that
curfew was calling for?
Mr. Monahan. I was aware of the curfew in my role as the
Acting Chief of the U.S. Park Police. I can't speak to what
every member of the public understood or were aware of.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, did the Park Police help to reinforce
that 7 p.m. curfew that people had to disburse by 7 p.m.?
Mr. Monahan. No, we did not play a role in enforcing the 7
p.m. curfew.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. You mentioned another injury on June 1,
and obviously that was regrettable, a facial laceration when an
officer was punched in the face. You said that was in the
clearing of H Street. Is that right?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, H Street, of course, forms the
northern boundary of Lafayette Park. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Monahan. It does, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. So, when did that happen? What time of
day on June 1, if you recall?
Mr. Monahan. I do not know the exact time, but it was
between 6:30 p.m. and 6:50 p.m., which was the time for the
clearing of H Street.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. So, would it be fair to say that that
injury occurred after the so-called surge to disburse the crowd
in Lafayette Park?
Mr. Monahan. It was during the, as you describe it, the
surge to clear H Street.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. So, that injury did not happen before
the surge. It happened during the surge.
Mr. Monahan. It did. Throughout the operational period, our
officers were subjected to a number of projectiles. They did
not sustain any injuries. The only injury we sustained on June
1 was that instance.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chief, for answering my
questions.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. DeGette is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Monahan, you said in your written testimony that the
police have dealt with and your agency had dealt with hundreds
of First Amendment demonstrations at special events. Is that
correct?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am. Every year we facilitate
hundreds----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, sir. I only have 5 minutes.
You also testified that there were violent protests between
May 29 and June 1. Is that correct?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. You just told Mr. Cartwright that on June 1
the one injury to the officer occurred during the clearing of H
Street. Is that correct?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to enter into the record the U.S. Park
Police's Use of Force Policy, General Order 3615, updated
November 1, 2019.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
I discussed this policy at the previous hearing, and Mr.
Monahan, are you familiar with this policy?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am, I am.
Ms. DeGette. And the policy governs the conditions under
which the Park Police's use of force is appropriate. I am going
to ask about some of those parts of the policy.
One section of the policy says, ``An officer is expected to
employ only the minimum level of reasonable force necessary to
control a situation.''
We have heard testimony and seen video evidence of the use
of chemical irritants and of officers chasing protesters to
beat them with batons.
Mr. Monahan, do you believe that represented only the
minimum level of reasonable force necessary to control the
situation of Lafayette Square on June 1?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, in terms of the rules of engagement on
June 1, again, I will reiterate that----
Ms. DeGette. You believe you complied with the rules that
those tactics were the minimum level of reasonable force given
to control that situation. Is that right?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. We stressed that we would only utilize
force if we were met with violent resistance.
Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you. Another section says, ``Once a
level of force is no longer required, it must be decreased or
discontinued.''
Did you conclude at any point on the evening of June 1,
after the push into the protesters began, that the level of
force being used was no longer required to clear the square?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I think if you watch it----
Ms. DeGette. What time was that? What time was that that
you decided that the level of force was no longer required?
Mr. Monahan. I am not sure I understand your question,
ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. OK. At some point after the push began, did
you conclude that the level of force that was being used was no
longer required to clear the square? That is what your rules
require.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I guess it requires a little bit of
explanation. It is a very fluid situation when we are clearing
H Street. So, throughout that operation, there was an instance
where an officer was wrestled to the ground by an angry
protester and a violent protester. He attempted to hold----
Ms. DeGette. Excuse me, sir. You are not answering my
question. Did you at any time during the clearing of the Square
determine that a de-escalation was appropriate? Yes or no?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, and I'm trying to give you a good example
of how that----
Ms. DeGette. You are not. You are just--OK. I am going to
move on. You are not going to answer my question.
Finally, the policy says ``the goal of de-escalation
tactics is to gain the voluntary compliance of a subject when
appropriate and consistent with personal safety to reduce or
eliminate the use of force.''
Now, I want to ask you. Do you believe the Park Police's
sudden surge into the entire protest crowd on June 1 was a
genuine effort to get the protesters to voluntarily comply and,
most importantly, to reduce or eliminate the necessity to use
force?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I do.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, I want to ask you one more question
since you have shown familiarity with these policies. Is there
a section in the policies that allows the police to use force
based on events of previous days' demonstrations?
And I ask you this question because you have testified
throughout this hearing today that in the previous days before
June 1, there were a number of officers injured, and that there
was a lot of violence used.
But on June 1, you are using that as your rationale for
using violence from the beginning on June 1, based on what
happened in days before. Can you point me to a section of the
policy that allows pre-emptive use of force based on previous
demonstrations?
Mr. Monahan. Ma'am, my testimony to you today is that the
use of force that we utilized on June 1 was in direct
correlation to the level of violence that we were subjected to
on June 1.
Any reference to anything that occurred on May 29, 30, or
31 was for context.
Ms. DeGette. OK. So, you are saying that what we were
seeing the Park Police do on June 1, the surge into the crowd,
you are saying it is your position that that was directly
related to the force that was being used by the protesters on
that day immediately before the surge. Is that your testimony?
Voice. Mr. Chairman, there is a pattern going on here.
The Chairman. I am trying to. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. I am sorry?
The Chairman. Time is up.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I recognize Mr. Brown for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Chief Monahan, thank you for testifying today.
Let me just start by saying I do appreciate the
responsibility that you and your officers have to maintain
public safety, and I do understand the level of force and
engagement that you need to take when you are dealing with
unlawfulness, whether it is arson, looting, or other violence.
But I think many on this Committee are also concerned about
how we engage peaceful protesters, and there seems to be a
blurring of the lines between peaceful protesters and
unlawfulness that perhaps you and your officers did not
recognize.
Let me ask you this question. The Washington Post reported
that 6:10 p.m. on June 1, Attorney General Barr could be seen
in CNN's live shot of the area at Lafayette Park, and at one
point, Barr was speaking to a man who looked like a Park Police
official. The official could be seen dropping his head in what
looked like exaggerated resignation. One of the men with Barr
even patted him on the back, as though consoling him.
And I am going to ask the Committee to show that video, and
as they do, as they pull up the video, I want you to focus on
the man, Chief Monahan, who approaches Attorney General Barr
and appears to be a law enforcement official.
Can we show that video please?
[Video shown.]
Mr. Brown. Chief Monahan, can you identify that law
enforcement official in the video?
Mr. Monahan. Captain Russell Fennelly.
Mr. Brown. And was that captain the Incident Commander?
Mr. Monahan. No, he was not.
Mr. Brown. No? Have you spoken with the captain who spoke
with Attorney General Barr since June 1?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I have.
Mr. Brown. And was that part of a sort of after-action
review or to sort of learn about events on that day?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Can you say the captain's name again, please?
Mr. Monahan. His first name is Russell. His last name is
Fennelly.
Mr. Brown. Fennelly. Did Captain Fennelly receive any
instructions from Attorney General Barr?
Mr. Monahan. No, he did not. If you look at the video, he
proactively walks over to the group. You can see him with his
hands----
Mr. Brown. What was the nature of the conversation that he
had with Attorney General Barr? What did our Attorney General
Barr ask him to do or what information did Attorney General
Barr give him?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir, that is what I am trying to explain
to you. You can see him gesture to the left, to his left and to
his right. His point in addressing the group was that they were
very close to the north end of Lafayette Park. They were very
close to an area where we saw and had our officers subjected to
projectiles being thrown at them earlier in the day on June 1.
And based on Captain Fennelly's assessment, they were way
too close to the line and in a position of danger. He went over
there----
Mr. Brown. Do you have any idea why Captain Fennelly
dropped his head and in response a member of Attorney General
Barr's detail patted him on the back?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, I do. His purpose in addressing them was
to ask them to move away from the area so they were in a safer
location, and at the end of that exchange with the Attorney
General's protective detail, they moved south in the park away
from the demonstration area.
Mr. Brown. And what information did Attorney General Barr
convey to the captain?
Mr. Monahan. I think it was the opposite, sir, to be honest
with you. It was Captain Fennelly conveying to the Attorney
General.
Mr. Brown. Chief Monahan, your officer responded to
something that Attorney General Barr said. What did Attorney
General Barr say to your officer on the ground?
Mr. Monahan. Again, sir, it was our captain addressing the
Attorney General and the group and his detail and requesting
that they move away from the area toward a position of safety
as opposed to being up there on the line. It was not----
Mr. Brown. And what was Barr's response? What was Attorney
General Barr's response?
Mr. Monahan. I think you can see the response on the video.
They all moved south through the park. They heeded his warning.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
We will turn to Mrs. Dingell. You are recognized.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Bishop, for convening this hearing to answer some of the
unanswered questions from last month's hearing on the June 1
Lafayette Square protest.
As my fellow Committee members have stated, this sort of
action, unarmed protesters being forcibly attacked by armed
police without provocation, both violates our fundamental
principles and calls for us to closely examine how the events
in question could have occurred.
And I am very grateful we have an Administration witness
here so that we can try to get some answers to some of these
questions.
Mr. Monahan, I think you would agree that managing large
crowds like protests is a law enforcement challenge that
requires specific knowledge and skills. If officers on duty are
not properly trained, what are the potential consequences for
protesters or the officers themselves?
Mr. Monahan. So, ma'am, the United States Park Police
officers are properly trained, and our focus that day was
centered around the protection of life, the protection of those
that were there to peacefully assemble, to maintain law and
order, and to ensure the safety of our officers. That is our
focus for that demonstration on June 1 and any demonstration
that we facilitate.
Mrs. Dingell. And am I correct though? And you just said
that all of your officers were trained. If you do not have
trained officers, is it not the case that situations can
quickly escalate and become violent?
Mr. Monahan. Based on the scenario that you just mentioned,
ma'am, yes, I would agree.
Mrs. Dingell. So, in cases where there are singular
instances of violence, would the training advise attacking the
entire crowd or would it advise them to isolate and remove the
individuals perpetrating that violence. And I'll give you an
example. I have done 20 peaceful marches, walks, protests at
home. And in a number of them, people have shown up with bricks
and other things, yet there has not been one episode of
violence; because is it not true that you should try to isolate
and remove those that are trying to perpetrate the problem?
Mr. Monahan. Yes. And our----
Mrs. Dingell. I'm not asking you trick questions.
Mr. Monahan. Again, our rules of engagement that day were
focused on--we would not use force unless we were met with
violent resistance from the crowd. And those bad actors in the
crowd subjected violent behavior against law enforcement
throughout the operational period on June 1.
Mrs. Dingell. Let me ask you about the other law
enforcement units that were there on Lafayette Square that day.
Do you know if there were any officers from any other agency
present that were not trained in civil disturbance?
Mr. Monahan. The agencies that we partnered with that day
that were involved in the clearing operation on H Street were
all trained in civil disturbance.
Mrs. Dingell. So, every officer to your knowledge that was
present was trained that day.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am. To my knowledge, yes.
Mrs. Dingell. So, you commanded the police force at the tip
of the spear that day. The Arlington County Police Department
and the D.C. National Guard were there specifically to help the
Park Police, so your presence was central. And you do know that
everybody there was trained to deal with high-pressure, high-
visibility, high-consequence historic events?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am. The United States Park Police,
Secret Service Uniformed Division who were operating under a
unified command, and the partner agencies that assisted with
that operation are all trained in civil disturbance. And our
duty at an event like that where we have sustained violence
being directed at law enforcement is to protect the safety of
the officers and for those that are there to peacefully
demonstrate.
Mrs. Dingell. Let me ask you a question. How do you know
that everybody there--I think it is very important, having been
places where people have tried to cause trouble--how do you
know it is true? How do you know that everybody you are working
with has been trained in dealing with these kinds of
situations?
Mr. Monahan. The agencies, again, that were part of the
clearing operation on H Street, the partner agencies that we
dealt with, participate in the same training that we do.
Mrs. Dingell. And do you make sure of that ahead of time?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, ma'am. These are regional partners that
we collaborate with on a yearly basis for hundreds of
demonstrations. Larger demonstrations, such as the one that we
saw on June 1, larger demonstrations such as the inauguration,
things like that.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Monahan.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
Let me recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, would you mind going to a
Majority Member and then coming back, please?
The Chairman. Let me recognize Mr. Soto. Five minutes, sir.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Chief Monahan, I am sure you understand we are not
here because you all erected a fence. But no one here is
disputing the need for an appropriate response to the protests
when they got violent on May 29. And to the extent that your
officers were injured, we are all very sorry about that.
You are here because it appears that the President of the
United States cleared peaceful protestors to have a photo op:
to create a false appearance that he had protests under control
and to intimidate Americans from exercising their First
Amendments rights. And as a result, there were numerous
protestors who were there peacefully and were grievously
injured as a result of the clearing.
Do you think it is appropriate to forcefully clear
protestors to pave the way for a photo op for President Trump?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir, and that was not our objective on
June 1, that was not what we accomplished on June 1. Our focus
on June 1 was centered around the safety of the demonstrators
to maintain law and order and to ensure the safety of our
officers and we accomplished that goal.
Mr. Soto. What are the usual reasons you are ordered to
remove Americans from Lafayette Square in other instances in
your career?
Mr. Monahan. In this particular instance----
Mr. Soto. I am asking about in the past.
Mr. Monahan. From a historical basis, there are oftentimes
throughout the course of a year, there are demonstrations on
the south side of the White House sidewalk; and at times, based
on what the group is and what they are there for, there are
routes that are made, it is more of an organized affair if you
will. But it is markedly different from what we saw on June 1.
What we saw on June 1 was a need to clear that area to
create a safe space for the fencing company to install the
fence. The whole concept of installing the fence was based on
an effort to de-escalate the violence that was rising from May
29 through June 1, and throughout the operational period on
June 1. That was our goal; those were the objectives on June 1.
Mr. Soto. Acting Chief Monahan, if you are given an illegal
order by a superior, you have a duty to refuse that order. Is
that correct?
Mr. Monahan. Can you repeat the question? You said if I was
given an illegal order?
Mr. Soto. Yes. If you have been given an illegal order by a
superior, you have a duty to refuse that order. Is that
correct?
Mr. Monahan. That is accurate, yes.
Mr. Soto. So, if you were given an order to clear Lafayette
Square for campaign purposes for the President of the United
States, would that be an illegal order?
Mr. Monahan. That is not my testimony today, sir. Our
operation and our objective on June 1 was to clear that area to
establish the anti-scale fencing in an effort to de-escalate
the violence that was on the rise since May 29 with the
condition to provide for the safety of the protestors, to
maintain law and order, and to provide for the safety of our
officers.
Mr. Soto. I understand what your interpretation was, Acting
Chief Monahan. I am asking more in theory since many of us have
disagreements on what happened that day. Would it be illegal
for you all to clear Lafayette Square for campaign purposes for
a President of the United States?
Mr. Monahan. Sir, respectfully, I am not here to engage in
theoretical conversations about what transpired on June 1. I am
here to give you an accurate accounting of what happened. And
on June 1, as I described, our focus was to clear Lafayette
Park, install that anti-scale fencing for the safety of those
that were there to peacefully assemble, to maintain law and
order, and to provide for the safety of our officers.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chief. I agree we need to maintain law
and order, which is why it is important to refuse illegal
orders, particularly when they are wholly of a political
nature.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Here we go. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start out by saying, No. 1, I believe that there
are racial injustices and inequities that we absolutely need to
address as the U.S. Congress, and I do believe in some cases
those are systemic.
I also want to commend on the next panel, Major DeMarco,
for him stepping up and expressing concern about what he viewed
as something that was inappropriate.
And last in this regard, I want to say that some of the
reports of folks being detained and questioned without any
charges, not by you, but by some of the protestors out West and
law enforcement out West, I do support the investigation of
those, and I want to be clear that I do not believe that
protests provide an opportunity to infringe on people's
Constitutional rights.
That being said, Chief, I believe I heard you earlier--I
have been hearing bits and pieces of this hearing--I believe I
heard you earlier say that Park Police have participated in
hundreds of demonstrations across the Washington area and other
areas. Is that correct?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. And on an annual basis----
Mr. Graves. OK. So, probably fair to say that you and your
officers are more practiced in dealing with protestors than
most police forces around the United States?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir, I would like to think so. Yes.
Mr. Graves. And probably get more training in that regard
as well.
Mr. Monahan. I can only speak to the level of training that
we get, but yes.
Mr. Graves. OK. So, the next question is, of the hundreds
of protests that you and your officers have participated in,
how many of those have included the violence that your officers
saw in the preceding days to what we are discussing today?
Meaning the injury of officers, the fires, the damage to public
property, and things along those lines.
Mr. Monahan. They happen from time to time. In my
experience, they are the exception, not the rule.
Mr. Graves. So, is it fair to say--and do not let me put
words in your mouth--that this was really an extraordinary
protest in regard to the damage, in regard to the intensity, in
regard to the injury to your officers. I believe I read
somewhere where 50 officers were injured?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, that is accurate.
Mr. Graves. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that we first of
all need to be very clear that there is nothing normal about
this. This was an absolutely extraordinary effort and you had
folks that were extraordinarily experienced and trained to deal
with this.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it was last week, or the week
before, we had the Great Outdoors Act, or whatever, under the
jurisdiction of this Committee, though the Bill did not
actually come through the Committee, where we appropriated
mandatory spending billions of dollars to maintain fences,
signs, toilets, and other things at our national parks and
other Federal lands that comprise 28 percent of the United
States of America. We did this as mandatory spending billions
of dollars. It goes on in perpetuity, no end; 200 years from
now, we are still spending it under the law that was passed.
This is the second hearing that we are having on an
incident that happened at Lafayette Park, one square block
across the street from the White House.
Mr. Chairman, there is a global pandemic right now. We have
record unemployment, we have a record recession right now, we
are seeing the virus take off everywhere, and we are wasting
time on this.
And I will say it again, I absolutely believe that we need
to protect the Constitutional rights of our citizens, but this
is ridiculous, and the way the Chief is being treated is
absolutely ridiculous. Think about it for just a minute. Your
line of questioning is that the President was trying to advance
a campaign initiative, yet what you are doing is you are trying
to advance a campaign initiative using official resources right
here. The hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting watching what is
happening here.
Chief, everybody is showing clips that promote their
narrative. There were fires, there were dozens of your officers
that were being injured as a result of this protest. I think it
is absolutely disgusting that folks are trying to spin this
narrative.
Now I understand the next panel, Major DeMarco, is going to
be talking about his perspective--as I understand, there was a
meeting on Saturday that determined the need for a fence. Was
the Major involved in those meetings that talked about the
justification for erecting the fence in the meeting with the
Park Police?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir, he was not.
Mr. Graves. OK. So, again, I commend him for sharing what
he viewed as being inappropriate, but I also think it is
important to note that perhaps he was not aware of all of the
information that was out there.
Chief, I have a lot of other questions, but there are 20
seconds left. Very quickly, are there any other things that you
would like to share with the Committee or the public? I know
you were cut off repeatedly in your questions, so I will give
you the last few seconds here.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, again, I would just go back to my
original point that our objective on June 1 was to provide for
public safety. Our objective on June 1 was to maintain law and
order, to ensure that any lawful demonstration could continue
uninterrupted, and to provide for the safety of our officers,
and I think we accomplished that goal.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask just for the record
if the Chief could please provide the Committee with
information indicating whether those protestors that were
closer to the LRAD system that were announcing the distribution
of protesters, if they seemed to leave more so or
disproportionally to those that were further away, meaning your
folks who were actually responding to the announcements or not.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And yes, there is a
severe and cruel pandemic going on and your lecture
notwithstanding, that lecture would be very appropriate with
your President so he can understand there is a cruel and vast
pandemic going on in this country.
With that, let me recognize Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for holding
this hearing to actually learn why Federal law enforcement may
have violated the First Amendment rights of the peaceful
demonstrators at Lafayette Park, and for some even thinking
that this was done so the President would get a chance to go
and stand in front of the church and hold a Bible, and actually
never went in to kneel and say a prayer.
But I yield my time at this time to Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Representative Sablan.
I have a couple of questions. Who were the other police
officers and departments that were there besides the National
Park Service?
Mr. Monahan. The agencies that assisted us in the clearing
of H Street were Park Police, U.S. Secret Service, the
Arlington County Police Department, and that is it. We had
Federal Protective Service inside the park.
Mr. Gallego. I want to run something, a couple timelines
through you, so I can get them straight. At 6:10 p.m., that
meeting happened with whatever captain that was, and Barr. At
what time does the Incident Commander give the order to start
pushing on the protesters?
Mr. Monahan. The first warning that was given to the
protesters?
Mr. Gallego. Yes.
Mr. Monahan. That the area was being closed so we can
install the fence was given at 6:23 p.m.
Mr. Gallego. 6:23 p.m. And then they started moving on the
protesters at what time?
Mr. Monahan. Our operation began right around 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Gallego. Yes, I have 6:35 p.m., but I will give you the
5 minutes.
At 6:43 p.m., as you guys are pushing, I want to read you
exactly what the President is saying at 6:43 p.m.--``I am also
taking swift and decisive action to protect our great capital,
Washington, DC. What happened in the city last night was a
total disgrace. As we speak''--he said as we speak--``I am
dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers,
military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the
rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and wanton destruction
of property.''
In his remarks, the President is bragging about--bragging
about--ordering law enforcement to take on protesters in DC.
Yet, you are arguing that the police, the Park Police solely
made its decision about when to push based on the best scenario
and situation for putting up the fencing. Is that correct?
Mr. Monahan. No, sir, I am not arguing with you. I am
telling you factually what happened. And that was our----
Mr. Gallego. Your story isn't factual.
So, at 6:43 p.m. this is happening. And then also,
coincidentally, there is no radio recording of that day. So,
there is this timeline that kind of all makes sense if you put
it together. I mean, if I was prosecuting somebody, I probably
would have them dead to rights right now: 6:10 p.m., first
meeting; 6:23 p.m., first warning order; 6:35 p.m., push on the
protesters; 6:43 p.m., the President gives his rah-rah speech.
No radio comms, we can't find anything. And then you claim that
you were meeting violent resistance. But yet there is no
violent resistance. You claim, and I think you are accurate
about this, that the only violent resistance that was met that
day was after the initial push. There was no officer that was
injured prior to your order. Is that correct?
Mr. Monahan. Sir, I would not equate violent resistance
with injured force members. We were subjected to projectiles
throughout the day on June 1. We were met with violent
resistance on the clearing operation of the north end of
Lafayette Park----
Mr. Gallego. Of course, you are going to meet with violent
resistance. You threw pepper balls and you were batoning
people.
Mr. Monahan. And, again, our rules of engagement, sir, were
to only use force if we were met with violent resistance.
Mr. Gallego. So, you claim there was violent resistance
prior to the clearing that started at 6:35?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, and I believe I gave you numerous
examples. There were individuals that jumped over the police
line several times that day. There were projectiles being
thrown at officers throughout the day.
Mr. Gallego. So, this is all one big coincidence that at
that point, this is when the violent resistance had finally
swelled, that you had to do it at the exact point which happens
to be probably 7 minutes before the President starts his
speech? It just happened, you could not wait until 7 p.m. to do
it, when there are probably people actually starting to retreat
because of the curfew. At that exact same moment, which we have
no radio comms whatsoever, coincidentally, that one day, that
all happens in that span of 30 minutes, and it all happened
exactly how you are reporting it?
Mr. Monahan. And we have a written record of radio comms
that day. But our decision to clear H Street at the time that
we did was based on an on-the-ground assessment of the violence
that was subjected at law enforcement that day. That is a fact,
yes.
Mr. Gallego. Well, your assessment was totally off.
Last question. Did the U.S. Park Police coordinate with
anybody in the White House or the Secret Service?
Mr. Monahan. As I stated earlier, we were operating under
unified command with the United States Secret Service.
Mr. Gallego. And that day, did you have communication with
the White House or Secret Service at that time?
Mr. Monahan. Communication with the Secret Service, I would
not say it was with the White House. I think they are two
separate things.
Mr. Gallego. OK, thank you, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, question of the
Chair.
The Chairman. Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, Mr. Chairman, was it the order of the Mayor
of DC to have no public at 7 o'clock? Is that the order that I
keep hearing about?
The Chairman. That was part of the testimony, that that was
the order----
Dr. Gosar. So, it would make sense that you would start
clearing earlier, so that they could achieve that goal of the
Mayor.
The Chairman. Convenient, but no cigar.
Dr. Gosar. I think very much cigar.
The Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Cunningham, I will recognize
Mr. Cunningham for his 5 minutes. Sir, you are recognized.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Clay, if he is still online?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If there is no objection, unanimous consent
that Mr. Beyer be allowed to join the Committee and ask
questions.
Hearing none, Mr. Beyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And thank you
for waving me on. And I certainly want to object to Mr. Graves'
notion that we are sponsoring a narrative.
This is right across the river from my district, my
goodness.
I hope this is coming in. It has been fine all day. Mr.
Chairman, I hope this computer is working well but it does not
seem to be.
The Chairman. Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, apparently the video traffic in
Alexandria has crushed this, so if I can go on with an audio,
if that would be permissible?
The Chairman. If there are no objections? Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. OK, thank you.
So, Acting Chief Monahan, I had and continue to have three
key behavioral worries over the incident that day. First and
foremost, for my constituents, this is right across the river
from my district, as you know. And many of my constituents were
in the crowd and in physical danger, including my daughter and
her fiance. I talked to many, many people who were there who
described a completely different picture than what you did, and
I remain very worried about how police engagement has
endangered many lawful and peaceful protesters.
The second big worry is what happened to the Arlington
County Police, who are also my constituents and our local
police force, who were weaponized under your authority that
day. They were the front lines to push the protesters; that was
wholly inappropriate and not the understanding that the county
had for any sort of peaceful protest engagement that routinely
happens in the Nation's capital. That's why the chairman of the
board pulled them back as soon as she heard about that. Their
actions under the Park Police cost them local trust that they
are actively working to rebuild, and I know it was a cause of
embarrassment and regret for them.
And third, and most importantly, the behavior of the Park
Police officers, many of whom again I know are my constituents,
but with the behavior that day, they lost our community's
trust. And why is this important? Because in the National
Capital Region, Park Police are an important law enforcement
entity and we depend on them to do the right thing, and here
they failed us.
This was not the first problematic incident, nor should I
say that Bijan Ghaisar's death in November 2017, either. But
Lafayette compounded my concerns. You talked about you couldn't
talk about the interaction with the press because there was an
ongoing investigation. We are in the same position with Bijan
Ghaisar. I wrote you back in November 2019 to get an update on
the Bijan Ghaisar investigation. I got a letter back this
month, 8 months later, saying that you could not comment
because there was an ongoing investigation over a murder that
happened almost 3 years ago.
In the months after Bijan's murder, I met with then-Chief
McClain, who committed to me that the Park Police would adopt
body cameras and I thought that was smart and an excellent
commitment to future accountability and transparency. In fact,
the only reason we know about Bijan Ghaisar was because the
Fairfax County Police had their dash cameras on.
And now it is 2020, we have this weird deal where the comms
did not work for the Park Police that day, no record. And
Lafayette was another flagrant red flag for Park Police
behavior. And, again, because there were no body cameras, much
of what we know happened was because of other law enforcement
communications.
I have been following up with your department for years now
and asking for body cameras to be adopted since they were
committed to me. But the Park Police has not, nor have I been
provided with any rationale for a lack of adoption. And,
ironically, largely every other law enforcement in the
Department of the Interior has adopted body cameras. There is
language in the House Interior Appropriations Bill that we just
passed last week that gets you the money and addresses any
policy concerns you may have, thanks to Betty McCollum's
leadership. So, there is literally no excuse for the Park
Police not to adopt body cameras. In fact, you would be in a
much better position today with your testimony if you had them.
So, Chief, can you commit to me, to the Natural Resources
Committee today, that you will adopt body cameras?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, thank you for the question, sir. It is
true, the United States Park Police does not currently have a
body-worn camera program. We are supportive of such a program.
We acknowledge its alignment with contemporary trends in law
enforcement, as well as the expectations from the public.
However, at this time, we are not in a position to successfully
implement, manage, and sustain a body-worn camera program.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask, the money and the
policy is in the Appropriations Bill, so I hope that will not
be your ongoing answer.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. First of all, Mr. Monahan, thank you for
appearing today. And we do have more questions to follow.
I think in all the discussion, we have heard many things.
And why the June 1 incident in Lafayette is so important,
because of everything else that is going around, the issue not
only of questions of police reform, abuse, the calls by this
Administration and the President specifically of sending more
and more Federal presence into communities, whether they want
them or not. I think the precursor to much of this discussion
began June 1, with the President's presence there and the
premature clearing of the park.
And just out of my own curiosity, when did you, Chief, know
that the President was coming to St. John's and how did you
learn about it?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir. We were notified earlier in the day
that the President was going to visit Lafayette Park to conduct
a--to view the damage that was done to the park over the course
of the preceding days. But we were not given a time on when he
was visiting.
The Chairman. And on the scene on that day, who had the
tactical command on the scene? In particular, who ordered the
officers to move forward on the first surge at 6:30 p.m.? Who
said, now, go, or gave the command of the clearing? Did the
order go through you to move forward at that time?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, sir, the order was given by the Incident
Commander from the United States Park Police. And on June 1,
the Incident Commander was Major Mark Adamchik.
The Chairman. And go over for me the chain of command. I'm
following up on Mr. Gallego's and some other people's
questions, the chain of command you were going through, all the
way from the President down, in terms of your role in
commanding the U.S. Park Police as you do, literally leading
the charge, and the two other agencies, Arlington County that
was supporting the police, and D.C. National Guard. What is the
chain of command in that process?
Mr. Monahan. The chain of command for an incident such as
the one on June 1, we are operating under an ICS model, our
incident command system model. The Incident Commander for the
United States Park Police, again, was Major Mark Adamchik. We
were operating under unified command, so he had a counterpart
on the Secret Service side.
The Chairman. And who was above the Incident Commander from
the Park Police?
Mr. Monahan. He has full command and control of that
operation and he has the authority to make any and all
decisions for that operation.
The Chairman. And the order was given verbally, in person,
over the--well, not over the radio. Or using some other means?
Mr. Monahan. Which order are you referring to, sir?
The Chairman. The order to remove the crowd at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Monahan. Yes, in terms of the warnings that were given
to the public, they were given via the use of a long-range
acoustic device that we described earlier. He gave the first of
three warnings beginning at 6:23 p.m. Prior to giving those
warnings, he gave a briefing to all of the commanders that were
going to be involved in the clearing of H Street, so that they
understood what the operation was and what the rules of
engagement were.
The Chairman. And who authorized the Park Police to use
weapons, munitions and devices that were used, in particular
the chemical irritants? Did any of the lawyers that were
supposed to review the actions say that it was OK? Who would
that be to authorize that?
Mr. Monahan. Yes, so the authorization on the rules of
engagement lies with the Incident Commander. I concurred with
the change in our rules of engagement for June 1, which
expressly prohibited the use of CS gas.
The Chairman. Much has been said for the people under your
command, the officers that were hurt. We are glad that they
have made a recovery and they are doing well. But I think one
of the issues here today, too, is like I said, it is a
precursor to much of the discussion that is going on about law
and order and how politicized it has become.
Part of the question we have is whether our government even
understands the difference between an unruly, violent mob and
people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. And
even worse, Chief, is the fact that we are seeing the
Administration continue to expand this authoritarian approach
to law enforcement with the issues in Portland and in other
major cities. And, like I said, June 1 stands out as a date and
we will continue to pursue.
With that, I do not have any other questions. Chief, we
appreciate your time and your cooperation.
Mr. Monahan. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman? Can I ask unanimous consent?
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Dr. Hice. OK. Unanimous consent to add to the record a fact
sheet from DOI regarding June 1, the events?
The Chairman. Without objection.
Dr. Hice. Thank you.
The Chairman. So ordered.
There are no other questions. Thank you, Chief Monahan. And
we will invite our next witness forward.
Now we will begin our second panel if Major DeMarco will
join us. Thank you.
Adam DeMarco is the Strategy and Operations Consultant for
a consulting firm here in DC. He is also a major in the
District of Columbia Army National Guard, where he has served
since completing his active duty with the U.S. Army in 2014. He
is testifying pursuant to the Military Whistleblower Protection
Act.
I want to take a brief moment to recognize his father, Mr.
Frank DeMarco.
Thank you for joining us, sir.
He has traveled a long way to be here in the room with his
son.
And as a reminder, under Committee Rules, Mr. DeMarco, your
oral statement is 5 minutes. Your entire statement is part of
the record.
Again, thank you very much, and you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ADAM D. DEMARCO, MAJOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL GUARD
Major DeMarco. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I come before the Committee to help ensure that there is
a fair, factual record of what happened at Lafayette Square,
based on what I saw and experienced firsthand. I especially
want this Committee, the residents of Washington, DC, and the
American people to know that the D.C. National Guard performed
with the utmost professionalism and integrity, faithful to our
Constitution under the most challenging circumstances.
On June 1, I served as a liaison between the District of
Columbia National Guard and the Park Police at Lafayette
Square.
The role of the National Guard was to support the Park
Police operation to clear demonstrators from the vicinity of
Lafayette Square. The immediate objective of this clearing
operation, as the Park Police informed me, was to install a
larger security barricade on H Street, along the northern edge
of Lafayette Square.
The D.C. National Guard was not to be actively engaged in
the clearing operation. Rather, we would follow behind Park
Police units and help to secure an expanded security perimeter,
once established by the Park Police.
National Guardsmen were outfitted with standard riot gear,
such as face masks, shields, shin guards, and batons for
defensive purposes. But no National Guardsmen were armed with
lethal or non-lethal munitions that evening.
From what I observed, the demonstrators were behaving
peacefully, exercising their First Amendment rights. At around
6:20 p.m., the Park Police issued the first of three warning
announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse.
I did not expect the announcements so early, as the DC curfew
was not to go into effect until 7 p.m. that evening, 40 minutes
later. The warnings were conveyed using a megaphone near the
statue of President Andrew Jackson, approximately 50 yards from
the demonstrators. From where I was standing, approximately 20
yards from the demonstrators, the announcements were barely
audible, and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were
cognizant of the warnings to disperse.
At approximately 6:30 p.m. the Park Police began the
clearing operation led by the civil disturbance units and
horse-mounted officers. No National Guard personnel
participated in the push or engaged in any other use of force
against the demonstrators.
As the clearing operation began, I heard explosions and saw
smoke used to disperse the protesters. The Park Police liaison
officer told me that the explosions were stage smoke, and that
no tear gas is being deployed against the demonstrators. But I
could feel irritation in my eyes and nose. And based off my
previous exposure to tear gas in training, I recognized that
irritation as effects consistent with CS or tear gas. And later
that evening, I found spent tear gas canisters on the street
nearby.
As Park Police pushed the demonstrators further down H
Street, I saw demonstrators scattering and fleeing as Park
Police charged toward them. I observed people fall to the
ground, and some Park Police used their shields offensively as
weapons. As I walked behind Park Police pushing westward on H
Street, I also observed unidentified law enforcement personnel
behind our National Guardsmen using paintball-like weapons to
discharge what I later learned to be pepper balls into the
crowd as demonstrators continued to flee.
After H Street had been cleared, I took up a position on
16th Street near St. John's Church. At around 7:05 p.m., I saw
the President walking onto H Street from Lafayette Square, near
St. John's Church. The President's arrival was a complete
surprise, as we had not been briefed that he would enter our
sector.
As for the new security barrier, whose installation was the
stated purpose for the clearing operation, the materials to
erect it did not arrive on scene on H Street until around 9
p.m. that evening, and it was not completed until later on.
Members of the Committee, the events I witnessed at
Lafayette Square on the evening of June 1 were deeply
disturbing to me and fellow National Guardsmen. Based on my
training and experience, at no time did I feel threatened by
the protesters or assess them to be violent. And based on
established U.S. military protocols concerning proportionality
of force in dealing with civil disturbances both within the
United States and overseas, it was my observation that the use
of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an
unnecessary escalation of the use of force.
From my observation, those demonstrators, our fellow
American citizens, were engaged in the peaceful expression of
their First Amendment rights. Yet, they were subjected to an
unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force. As the late
Representative John Lewis said, ``When you see something that
is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation
to say something, to do something.'' The oath I swore as a
military officer to support and defend the United States
Constitution is a bedrock guiding principle for me. It is the
foundation of the trust safely placed in the armed forces by
the American people. And it compels me to say something, to do
something about what I witnessed on June 1 at Lafayette Square.
I thank you for your time and this opportunity and look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Major DeMarco follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adam DeMarco, Major, DC National Guard
introduction
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the
events at Lafayette Square in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2020.
I come before the Committee to help ensure that there is a fair
factual record of what happened at Lafayette Square, based on what I
saw and experienced firsthand. I especially want this Committee, the
residents of Washington, DC, and the American people to know that the
Soldiers and Airmen of the DC National Guard performed with the utmost
professionalism and integrity, faithful to our Constitution, under the
most challenging of circumstances.
I regard my testimony today as fulfilling my oath to support and
defend the Constitution, and as an extension of my public service--
service that began as a cadet at the United States Military Academy at
West Point and has continued for over a decade as a commissioned
officer both in the Army and the National Guard.
During my 5 years on active duty, I had the privilege of serving in
the 1st Cavalry and 1st Armored Divisions, and the honor of leading
America's sons and daughters in three overseas deployments, including a
combat deployment to Iraq. In 2014, after completing my active duty
obligation, I elected to continue to serve in uniform by joining the
District of Columbia National Guard. Through my military service, I
have continued a family tradition of public service dating back to my
grandfathers, Charles Woodrow Wilson Lohrig and William Holmes.
My paternal grandfather, Grandpa ``Woody,'' enlisted in the Navy in
the 1930s and was assigned to the USS Houston, said to be President
Franklin Roosevelt's favorite ship. On February 28, 1942, the Houston
encountered an overwhelming Japanese force in what is known as the
Battle of the Sunda Strait. Surviving the initial battle only to be
captured by the Japanese, Grandpa Woody and his shipmates endured a
brutal 42 months of forced labor, torture, and starvation in captivity
until liberated by Allied forces in 1945.
My maternal grandfather enlisted in the United States Marine Corps
after the end of World War II. He later fought in the Korean War and
received the Purple Heart for wounds sustained in combat. He never
talked about his time in Korea, but he was a proud Marine until his
dying day and always christened his boats with the name, ``Semper Fi.''
In the 1980s, my father also engaged in public service--first as a
law enforcement officer in Pinellas County, Florida, and subsequently
as a Special Agent at the Department of Defense and the Department of
Transportation. His example imparted to me essential core values that I
strive to live up to each and every day.
events at lafayette square on june 1
In March 2020, I was activated by the DC National Guard to assist
in the District of Columbia's response to the coronavirus pandemic. In
that capacity, I was selected to serve as a liaison between the DC
National Guard and the DC Government's Department of Health and local
hospitals to facilitate immediate needs requests, surge capacity
planning, and emergency events associated with the pandemic.
On the evening of May 29, 2020, I received notification that the
entire DC National Guard was to be activated to help respond to ongoing
civil disturbances within the District of Columbia, specifically in the
vicinity of Lafayette Square.
Over the next 2 days, the DC National Guard deployed forces to
Lafayette Square in support of the U.S. Park Police. During that time,
I received reports that six DC National Guard personnel had sustained
injuries as a result of violent unrest outside of the White House. I
also learned that Federal law enforcement officers from the Park Police
and the U.S. Secret Service had sustained injuries.
On June 1, 2020, I was tasked to serve as a liaison between the DC
National Guard's ``Task Force Civil Disturbance'' and the Park Police
at Lafayette Square. As events unfolded that evening, I was one of the
senior DC National Guard officers within the area of operations.
The Task Force consisted of approximately 250 personnel from the DC
National Guard, and its mission was to provide support for the Park
Police in the vicinity of the White House and national monuments. DC
National Guard personnel were outfitted with standard riot gear, such
as face masks, shields, shin guards, and batons for defensive purposes.
But no National Guardsmen were armed with lethal or non-lethal
munitions that evening.
Staging from the DC Armory, we arrived at the White House complex
around 5:35 p.m. and formed up in front of the Department of the
Treasury to minimize our footprint and avoid antagonizing demonstrators
positioned along the fence line on H Street on the northern edge of
Lafayette Square. Upon arrival, I received a briefing from my liaison
with the Park Police and learned that the DC National Guard's task
would be to support a Park Police operation to clear demonstrators from
the vicinity of Lafayette Square. The Park Police plan was to clear H
Street between Vermont Avenue to the east and Connecticut Avenue to the
west, and move north on Vermont Avenue, 16th Street, and Connecticut
Avenue to extend the security perimeter from H Street to I Street. The
immediate objective of this clearing operation, I was told, was to
install a larger security barricade on H Street along the northern edge
of Lafayette Square.
From a briefing I received from the Park Police, I learned that the
Park Police, along with the Secret Service, would conduct an operation
to clear demonstrators on H Street between Vermont Avenue and
Connecticut Avenue. The DC National Guard was not to be actively
engaged in the clearing operation. Rather, our job was to move behind
the Park Police as H Street was cleared and the new northern security
perimeter was established on I Street, then reinforce and relieve the
Park Police on the new perimeter and hold a static line there. I
understood that a curfew imposed by the DC Mayor was not going into
effect until 7 p.m., so I was not expecting any clearing operation to
commence before then.
I did not know what orders or rules of engagement had been issued
to the Park Police concerning the use of force against the
demonstrators. I asked my Park Police liaison if tear gas would be used
because I had observed tear gas canisters affixed to Park Police
officers' vests, and I knew that tear gas had been used against
demonstrators the previous evening. The Park Police liaison told me
that tear gas would not be employed.
A few minutes before 6 p.m., I was standing near the statue of
Andrew Jackson in the middle of Lafayette Square as DC National Guard
personnel formed up behind Park Police units positioned in a line
behind the perimeter fence on the H Street side of the square, facing
demonstrators on the other side of the fence. From what I could
observe, the demonstrators were behaving peacefully, exercising their
First Amendment rights.
At approximately 6:05 p.m., after I had repositioned myself close
to the line, I observed Attorney General William Barr and Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, walking across
Lafayette Square from the direction of the White House toward the
security perimeter on H Street. Attorney General Barr walked right up
to the line of Park Police and DC National Guard, in front of the
demonstrators, then walked down the line of Park Police officers and
National Guardsmen. The Attorney General then headed toward the statue
of President Jackson where he appeared to confer with Park Police
officers.
General Milley walked toward the area where I was standing. As the
senior National Guard officer on the scene at the time, I gave General
Milley a quick briefing on our mission and the current situation.
General Milley asked for an estimate of the number of demonstrators,
and I estimated 2,000. General Milley told me to ensure that National
Guard personnel remained calm, adding that we were there to respect the
demonstrators' First Amendment rights.
At around 6:20 p.m., after the Attorney General and General Milley
departed Lafayette Square, the Park Police issued the first of three
warning announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse.
I did not expect the announcements so early, as the curfew was not due
to go into effect until 7 p.m., 40 minutes later.
The warnings were conveyed using a megaphone near the statue of
President Jackson, approximately 50 yards from the demonstrators. From
where I was standing, approximately 20 yards from the demonstrators,
the announcements were barely audible and I saw no indication that the
demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings to disperse.
At approximately 6:30 p.m., the Park Police began the clearing
operation, led by Civil Disturbance Units and horse-mounted officers.
The Secret Service, and other law enforcement agencies I was unable to
identify, also participated in the push. No National Guard personnel
participated in the push or engaged in any other use of force against
the demonstrators.
By then I had moved to the northeast corner of Lafayette Square
near the statue of General Kosciuszko. As the clearing operation began,
I heard explosions and saw smoke being used to disperse the protestors.
The Park Police liaison officer told me that the explosions were
``stage smoke,'' and that no tear gas was being deployed against the
demonstrators. But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and
based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point
and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects
consistent with CS or ``tear gas.'' And later that evening, I found
spent tear gas canisters on the street nearby.
During the initial push, I had relocated to a position near the
northeast corner of Lafayette Square, next to the Comfort Station that
had been burned the previous evening, in order to closely observe the
clearing operation. As the horses began to move from east to west along
H Street, they stopped in the vicinity of St. John's Church and the
Park Police's Civil Disturbance Unit then took the lead and pushed the
demonstrators further down H Street. From my vantage point, I saw
demonstrators scattering and fleeing as the Civil Disturbance Unit
charged toward them. I observed people fall to the ground as some Civil
Disturbance Unit members used their shields offensively as weapons. As
I walked behind the Civil Disturbance Units pushing westward on H
Street, I also observed unidentified law enforcement personnel behind
our National Guardsmen using ``paintball-like'' weapons to discharge
what I later learned to be ``pepper balls'' into the crowd, as
demonstrators continued to retreat.
About 10 minutes after the clearing operation began, the Park
Police ordered the DC National Guard to move up behind the Park Police
clearing elements pushing north on Vermont Avenue, 16th Street, and
Connecticut Avenue to reinforce and relieve the Park Police on the
newly established northern perimeter.
I took up a position on 16th Street between St. John's Church and
the AFL-CIO building. By then, H Street had been cleared of
demonstrators. Soon thereafter, several black sport utility vehicles
pulled up at the intersection of 16th Street and H Street, and
uniformed Secret Service officers began to establish an inner security
cordon between the SUVs and our perimeter on I Street. At around 7:05
p.m., I saw the President walking onto H Street from Lafayette Square,
near St. John's Church, accompanied by his security detail. The
President's arrival was a complete surprise, as we had not been briefed
that he would enter our sector.
As for the new security barrier, whose installation was the stated
purpose of the clearing operation, the materials to erect it did not
arrive on the scene until around 9 p.m., and it was not completed until
later that night.
conclusion
Members of the Committee, the events I witnessed at Lafayette
Square on the evening of June 1 were deeply disturbing to me, and to
fellow National Guardsmen. Having served in a combat zone, and
understanding how to assess threat environments, at no time did I feel
threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent. In addition,
considering the principles of proportionality of force and the
fundamental strategy of graduated responses specific to civil
disturbance operations, it was my observation that the use of force
against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary
escalation of the use of force. From my observation, those
demonstrators--our fellow American citizens--were engaged in the
peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights. Yet they were
subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force.
As the late Representative John Lewis said, ``When you see
something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral
obligation to say something, to do something.''
The oath I swore as a military officer, to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States, is a bedrock guiding principle and,
for me, constitutes an individual moral commitment and ethical
instruction. It is the foundation of the trust safely placed in the
Armed Forces by the American people. And it compels me to say
something--and do something--about what I witnessed on June 1 at
Lafayette Square.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Chair Grijalva to Adam DeMarco,
Major, District of Columbia National Guard
WIGGIN AND DANA
August 28, 2020
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair,
Committee on Natural Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Responses to Questions for the Record
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
On behalf of my client, Adam D. DeMarco, I am forwarding the
enclosed written responses to Questions for the Record that he received
concerning the July 28, 2020 hearing of the House Committee on Natural
Resources (``Committee'') titled ``Unanswered Questions About the U.S.
Park Police's June 1 Attack on Peaceful Protestors at Lafayette
Square.''
The responses that Mr. DeMarco is submitting concern events he
participated in while activated as a reservist in the District of
Columbia National Guard. Accordingly, as in the case of his July 28
testimony before the Committee, Mr. DeMarco is providing this
information to the Committee pursuant to the Military Whistleblowers
Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1034.
Sincerely,
David H. Laufman
______
Question 1. You testified that the device law enforcement used on
June 1, 2020, at Lafayette Square to provide the mandatory warnings to
protestors to disburse was not a Long Distance Acoustic Device (LRAD),
but a standard hand-held megaphone. Please provide any knowledge you
may have about whether there was an LRAD on site that day, whether any
LRAD was used at all, whether anyone attempted to use an LRAD, and
whether there was any intended use of an LRAD. Please identify anyone
else who would have knowledge of whether an LRAD was used, procured for
use, or attempted to be procured for use at Lafayette Square on June 1,
2020.
Answer. At approximately 11:35 a.m. on June 1, while I was still at
Ft. Belvoir, I was copied on an email from the Provost Marshal of Joint
Force Headquarters National Capital Region (JFHQ-NCR), the lead
military police officer in the Department of Defense for the National
Capital Region, asking if the DC National Guard possessed ``a Long
Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) or the Active Denial Systems (ADS).'' The
email stated that ``ADS can provide our troops a capability they
currently do not have, the ability to reach out and engage potential
adversaries at distances well beyond small arms range, and in a safe,
effective, and non-lethal manner. The ADS can immediately compel an
individual to cease threatening behavior or depart through application
of a directed energy beam that provides a sensation of intense heat on
the surface of the skin. The effect is overwhelming, causing an
immediate repel response by the targeted individual.''
At approximately 12:04 p.m., I responded that the DC National Guard
was not in possession of either an LRAD or an ADS.
That evening, after the DC National Guard had deployed to Lafayette
Square, I asked my U.S. Park Police (USPP) liaison, Sgt. Glick, if the
USPP had an LRAD on-site. He responded that the USPP did not have an
LRAD on-site, and that the USPP typically uses the DC Metropolitan
Police Department's LRAD when such a device is needed.
Sgt. Glick then asked if the DC National Guard possessed an LRAD in
its equipment inventory. I replied that I would inquire about the
possibility of obtaining an LRAD.
According to a Situation Update Brief by JFHQ-DC on June 1 at 6
p.m., at that time there was a pending request for an LRAD by the DC
National Guard to JFHQ-NCR. To my knowledge, however, there was no LRAD
on-site at or near Lafayette Square on June 1.
On June 2, I began working with JFHQ-NCR to learn if they could
procure an LRAD. I made an informal request to the Provost Marshal at
JFHQ-NCR about the feasibility of procuring an LRAD. The Provost
Marshal subsequently received a response from Marine Corps Base
Quantico, advising that Marine Corps Base Quantico had several LRADs
on-site. I subsequently advised logistics officials in the DC National
Guard, but they informed me that they were no longer seeking to procure
an LRAD from the JFHQ-NCR.
Question 2. Please provide any information regarding the audibility
of the mandatory warnings that you may not have had a chance to present
at the hearing or would like to clarify, or respond to.
Answer. The warnings to disperse issued by the USPP at Lafayette
Square on June 1, 2020, did not come from an LRAD. Rather, I observed
that the device used to give the warnings was a red-and-white megaphone
laying on a bench near the statue of President Andrew Jackson in the
middle of Lafayette Square. An individual I later learned was the USPP
Incident Commander gave the warnings using a handheld microphone
attached to the megaphone.
As I stated in my previous testimony, at the time of the warnings
the individual giving the warnings (i.e., the USPP Incident Commander)
was approximately 50 yards from the demonstrators. I was positioned
approximately 30 yards from the Incident Commander, and approximately
20 yards from the front line of the demonstrators. From my position,
the USPP warnings to disperse were barely audible and I was only able
to discern several words.
Question 3. Please describe any knowledge you may have, or
statements you may have heard from others, regarding whether any law
enforcement used rubber bullets on protesters. Please include any
observations or knowledge you may have about which law enforcement
agency used rubber bullets.
Answer. I do not possess any first-hand knowledge that rubber
bullets were used against protesters on June 1. But I observed
Stingball grenades affixed to the ballistic vests of law enforcement
officers deployed to Lafayette Square. (I was unable to determine the
law enforcement agency with which these officers were associated.)
Several days later, a DC National Guardsman who was at Lafayette
Square on June 1 told me that he saw protesters being shot with these
non-lethal munitions. This DC National Guardsman told me how disturbed
he was at seeing an innocent civilian being shot with rubber bullets
and falling to the ground in front of him--seemingly indiscriminately.
Question 4. You mentioned the pre-positioning of M4 carbines by
National Guardsmen by transferring them from Fort Belvoir to the DC
Armory. When did this transfer occur and how did you become aware of
it? Do you have any knowledge of whether any ammunition was also pre-
positioned? If so, how did you become aware of it?
Answer. According to contemporaneous information I was receiving
from another DC National Guardsman in my unit, this transfer of weapons
occurred on June 1, 2020, at approximately 1:30 p.m. The order to
transfer the weapons to the DC Armory had come from the Commander of
the 260th Regiment, a unit of the DC National Guard.
On June 4, 2020, I received notice from the logistics component of
the DC National Guard that ammunition (not further described) was
arriving at the DC Armory from supporting states, including Missouri
and Tennessee.
On or about June 5, 2020, I learned from officers in the Joint
Operations Center at the DC Armory that 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition
had been transferred to the DC Armory.
On or about June 12, 2020, I learned from the chief operations
officer (J-3) for the DC National Guard that approximately 7,000 rounds
of ammunition had been transferred to the DC Armory.
Question 5. Acting Chief Monahan testified that the U.S. Park
Police used Stinger Balls. Please describe what a Stinger Ball is and
how it works. Are there any Army rules or regulations that would be
violated if Stinger Balls were used on a peaceful crowd?
Answer. According to the Department of Defense's Non-Lethal Weapons
(NLW) Reference Book, non-lethal weapons are defined as ``weapons,
devices and munitions that are explicitly designed and primarily
employed to incapacitate targeted personnel or materiel immediately,
while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and
undesired damage to property in the targeted area or environment.'' A
``Stingball grenade'' is among the types of munitions classified as a
non-lethal weapon. It is ``a hand-thrown or shotgun launched rubber
grenade that releases rubber pellets and delivers blunt trauma effects
against single and multiple targets to deny access, move, and/or
suppress individuals. Stingball grenade uses include crowd control,
detainee operations, and cordon and search operations.''
It is my understanding that the U.S. Army's use of non-lethal
weapons and riot control agents is governed by the Department of
Defense's Law of War Manual, and by Executive Order No. 11850, issued
on April 8, 1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 16187). I defer to legal experts on how
these rules would apply, in a given scenario, to the U.S. Army's use of
Stingball grenades ``on a peaceful crowd.'' As I testified, however, DC
National Guardsmen deployed to Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, were
not equipped with lethal or non-lethal munitions.
______
The Chairman. We will begin in the same way as the last
time.
Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Major DeMarco, you were not part of the Park Police
force, so you may not be as familiar with the night--the 2015
legal settlement that I discussed with the Acting Chief, but
you did hear, I think, the elements of that settlement, the
specific requirements of how, when confronting protesters, the
Park Service Police are required to stage in a very specific
way with officers in the back of the crowd who would visually
and verbally confirm that warnings were loud enough to be heard
and understood, that those warnings needed to include a very
clear reference to specific legal violations and a warning that
arrests would ensue.
So, you were on the ground. You have testified that you
were just a few yards from the front line here. Tell me, if you
can, if you believe that Chief Monahan's version of this, that
every one of those elements was complied with to the letter,
was that your experience, as a firsthand witness?
Major DeMarco. Sir, on the ground I am not aware of a long-
range acoustic device being in position or utilized for the
proclamation to disperse.
Mr. Huffman. You talked about a megaphone, a standard
megaphone. Maybe that is what they mean when they say long-
range acoustic device. But the only thing you heard was a
standard megaphone, correct?
Major DeMarco. That is correct, a megaphone placed on a
bench, utilized through a handheld microphone.
Mr. Huffman. All right. And do you believe that it was
audible enough to be understood by the protesters throughout
the crowd?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. I could barely understand the
message that was being delivered.
Mr. Huffman. Did you see anything to suggest that there
were officers in the back of the crowd that were somehow
confirming that it was loud enough to be understood?
Major DeMarco. I did not observe that, sir.
Mr. Huffman. What about the behavior of the protesters? Did
anything in their reaction or behavior suggest to you that they
had either understood or not understood what had been said in
the megaphone?
Major DeMarco. I saw no change in their disposition or
posture.
Mr. Huffman. All right. And in the warning, did you hear
any reference to a specific law that was being violated?
Major DeMarco. I could just make out every other word in
the statement that was being delivered.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I want to ask about the fencing
that has been offered as a justification for why this all had
to happen. And the Acting Chief said that the fencing, contrary
to your testimony, had arrived several hours earlier. But I
think he had said it was staged a couple of blocks away.
Is there any reason why, if it was important to install
that fencing as soon as it was on site, that it wouldn't have
happened a couple of hours earlier, if that fencing had already
arrived by that point?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I can't get into hypotheticals as to
why or why it was not installed at that time. Based off of the
Army training publications and the various doctrine that we use
in installing and maintaining defensive static positions,
certainly, I would have looked at other time frames to install
that fence.
Mr. Huffman. Yes, but you found it odd that you had a 7
p.m. curfew coming up, just 25 minutes later, and the fencing
could have been installed at that point in a manner that
avoided a confrontation, potentially. Am I understanding your
suggestion correctly?
Major DeMarco. At the time, I didn't make that correlation.
I was just there, focused on getting the mission and getting
our soldiers safely off the LMTVs that they arrived on, and
into position to support the Park Service----
Mr. Huffman. So, about the mission, were you told that this
was about fencing?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. OK, let me just ask, if I could, about the
timing of the clearing of the crowd. There is some live
tweeting from CNN, a CNN reporter, that suggests from that
moment that the advance began--I believe it was 6:35 p.m.--
within 10 minutes this crowd of several thousand people, by all
accounts, was gone. That suggests to me that there was great
urgency, that there was a very rapid clearing of the crowd.
What was your observation?
Major DeMarco. Based off of Army training publication 3-
39.33, entitled ``Civil Disturbance,'' that escalation to
rapidly move and disperse people is not in accordance with what
I understood as to be the suggested and guided practice to
clear the sector.
Mr. Huffman. So, the urgency, the speed of that clearing,
was unusual in your experience. Is that correct?
Major DeMarco. I was taken by surprise, correct.
Mr. Huffman. Do you infer from that, that that was part of
the objective by the Park Police, that clearing with speed was
their intention?
Major DeMarco. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Hice, sir, you are recognized.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. DeMarco, for being here. In the previous
panel, Chief Monahan testified that the decision to install the
fencing was actually made 2 days before June 1. It was on
Saturday, May 30. And that, of course, was in the aftermath of
the most violent protests that took place over the weekend. The
Park Service and the U.S. Secret Service rightfully wanted to
take steps to prevent that from happening. Were you a part of
those discussions 2 days prior?
Major DeMarco. No, sir.
Dr. Hice. On June 1, what kind of role did you have? Were
you in a senior position of command and control, or were you
there primarily as a supportive role?
Major DeMarco. I was not a commander, nor was I the officer
in charge. I was simply the liaison between the Park Police and
the D.C. National Guard. I would receive the missions and
taskings, and then alert the senior OIC, Officer in Charge, on
the ground of what the Park Police was requesting.
Dr. Hice. So, a supportive role.
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Dr. Hice. In that regard. OK, thank you.
You state that the fencing did not arrive until 9 p.m. on
June 1. Is that correct?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Dr. Hice. The folks on the ground with the Park Police and
the Secret Service share a different timeline. Here is the
timeline that they have. The fencing company site manager
arrived at 3:30 p.m. on June 1. The company staff arrived
shortly thereafter. The fencing material was delivered at 5
p.m. The order was given at 6:23 p.m. The square was cleared by
6:50 p.m., and trucks with material reportedly moved in the
Square immediately, and construction began at 7:30 p.m.
So, I mean, there was not a match-up in your timeline and
what actually took place. How do you reconcile this?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir. From my position, which was on H
Street and 16th Street, the first sighting I had of the 18-
wheeler carrying the non-scalable fence was at 9 p.m. that
evening, on or around. And the completion of that fence did not
occur until about 10:30 p.m. later that evening.
Dr. Hice. So, I guess from what you are saying, there is at
least the possibility that, from the location where you were,
you were not able to see all the activity and realize what was
taking place elsewhere.
Major DeMarco. That is correct, sir. However, the fence was
only being installed along H Street from Connecticut to
Vermont.
Dr. Hice. OK, but the timeline, it actually started at 7:30
p.m., so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your
location--you didn't perhaps see all that was taking place.
Major DeMarco. It is possible, sir.
Dr. Hice. You stated just a few moments ago about the three
warnings. Your testimony here, I ran back and was looking at
it. You said that, at 6:20 p.m., the Park Police issued--and
these are your words--the Park Police issued the first of three
warning announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to
disperse.
And you just said you didn't hear that. But your testimony
says they gave three warnings.
Major DeMarco. They did, but I did not hear the full
proclamation that was being given. But around that time, at
6:20 p.m., the warnings began.
Dr. Hice. OK. So, if you didn't hear them, how were you
aware that they took place?
Major DeMarco. Because I was approximately 30 yards away,
and I saw the Park Police officer with the megaphone laying on
a bench, holding----
Dr. Hice. You were 30 yards away from where? I am trying to
picture this.
Major DeMarco. From, essentially, the President Jackson
statue.
Dr. Hice. OK, so you heard the announcement.
Major DeMarco. But I couldn't make out exactly what they
were saying, sir.
Dr. Hice. OK, but enough to where you knew it was the first
of three warnings to disperse.
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir.
Dr. Hice. That is your testimony. That is your written
testimony.
Major DeMarco. Correct. If I was standing up at the line, I
would have no idea what they were actually saying. I was in a
position of privilege, where I could hear, and I expected
something to be coming from them.
Dr. Hice. OK. Again, your written testimony says at 6:20
p.m.--it is very precise--that they gave the first of three
warnings.
Anyway, we will go on from there. Let me just ask in
closing, Mr. DeMarco--I thank you for your service and a great
deal of service that you have done, and even politically--have
you ever run for Congress?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Dr. Hice. And when did you do that?
Major DeMarco. In 2018.
Dr. Hice. And what party were you?
Major DeMarco. A Democrat.
Dr. Hice. OK. I think it is very interesting how a lot of
these dots connect, as we continue defaming the police
department and attacking them for their stated purpose of
protecting public safety, and the rule of law, and the safety
of our law enforcement.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back for now.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Haaland, you are recognized.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Major DeMarco. Major DeMarco, it seems that some
law enforcement officers at Lafayette were not pleased about
what they were asked to do on that day. Arlington County pulled
their police officers from their role in assisting the U.S.
Park Police because they were shocked about how their officers
were used to attack peaceful protesters. It seemingly just
wasn't what they had signed up for.
We have heard about how members of the National Guard who
were at Lafayette Square have struggled with the things they
were asked to do on June 1, because it runs directly counter to
the very reasons they decided to serve their country, and to
their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
In your testimony today, you courageously expressed similar
sentiments, that what you saw our government do was wrong, and
that it was difficult to reconcile being put in that situation
with your commitment to your country and your fellow Americans.
Could you tell us a bit more about how this affected you
personally, as an officer in the National Guard?
Major DeMarco. Yes, ma'am. And thank you for that question.
In the days following June 1, I struggled to process
exactly what had happened and taken place, to the point where I
was sleeping very little, and I started trying to figure out
what the next steps were. I had confided in several other
officers in the District of Columbia National Guard, as well as
other friends and advisers that I have served with, both on
active duty and in support of active duty operations.
A couple of days later I decided that I needed to
memorialize my record, or my memory, and I wrote my own sworn
statement on my own volition. And I read it in front of another
officer, and he signed off on it, because I knew something was
wrong, but I didn't know what.
And then it was shortly thereafter that I started reaching
out to seeing what could be done, because I truly felt
compelled that I had to say something.
I started talking to other soldiers, soldiers that are in
my unit, soldiers that I have a supervisory authority over, and
they were expressing many of the same consternations and
concerns. So, I knew that it wasn't just me who had witnessed
this, and felt that there was something both morally and
legally wrong.
And in trying to process that, I realized that I am in a
position, as a major in the United States Army National Guard,
where I can do something. And that is why I decided to come
forward.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Major. And I am sorry you were put
in that position.
Are you aware of any other concerns from other people, your
colleagues in the D.C. National Guard, that were there that
day? And have they shared with you how this incident has
affected them?
Major DeMarco. Yes, ma'am. One of the soldiers in my unit,
without giving out any personally identifiable information, is
not a native-born American citizen from a developed country.
And in talking to him, and helping him try to understand what
he saw and his role in that, which he acted honorably, he said
that the events of June 1 were those that he expected to see in
his home country, not here in the United States.
And that was a very troubling statement that I heard from
him, but I told him that we were doing the right thing. And it
is another reason on a long litany of reasons why I am here
today to testify.
Ms. Haaland. And along these same lines, what does being
put in this kind of situation do for the morale and the mental
health of the people you serve with?
Major DeMarco. The District of Columbia National Guard has
been outstanding in ensuring that our soldiers and airmen have
received the support from both chaplain and emotional support
counselors to ensure that they understand and they have the
resources available if they need any further counseling.
Ms. Haaland. And Major DeMarco, as an officer, would you
ever put your fellow guardsmen or women in a position where
they were attacking citizens who were largely peacefully
protesting?
Major DeMarco. Absolutely not, ma'am.
Ms. Haaland. And you mentioned in your statement that Mark
Milley reminded you that the D.C. Guard was there to respect
the rights of protesters. Were you and your Guard members
confused why you had been told you were there to protect the
rights of Americans, and then realized that you were asked to
back up officers as they attacked these same protesters you
were supposed to respect?
Major DeMarco. Negative, ma'am. When we arrived in support
of the United States Park Police, we arrived to help them, but
also to maintain our--or to serve under our oath to support and
defend the Constitution. Just because we were in a supporting
role, did not change the way that we operate, or the laws that
we abide by.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you for answering my questions.
I yield, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gohmert. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Major DeMarco, since you brought up the First Amendment at
least three times, maybe more, in your statement--you said,
``We were there to respect the demonstrators' First Amendment
rights.'' Was that the order that was given to you guys in the
National Guard, ``Get out there, and your job is to respect the
demonstrators' First Amendment rights''?
Who gave that order?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. That was a statement from the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley.
Mr. Gohmert. Oh, yes. That is the same Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs that went out and criticized the President of the
United States.
This is a different military than the one I served in,
because when I was in the Army at Fort Benning, commanders
constantly reminded us that everybody knows that President
Carter is doing terrible damage to the military. But if anyone
criticizes their Commander in Chief anywhere but very
privately, they will either get an Article 15 or they will be
court martialed.
So, this is a new military, I am finding, where the Chair
of the Joint Chiefs feels it is perfectly OK to demean his
Commander in Chief, and then you felt the need to come out and
testify differently from what we have heard from people within
the Administration and others that were out there. I am trying
to get used to this new military, where you don't really feel
an obligation to answer to the civilian-elected Commander in
Chief. This is really intriguing.
Now, the rules of evidence and relevance here are much more
relaxed than they are in a jury trial, but even in a jury trial
you would be compelled to ask, did the Democratic Party give
you any financial assistance when you ran against John Sarbanes
for Congress?
Major DeMarco. No, sir, I was all self-financed.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. Do you have any idea how many
publications have mentioned your name since you came out
against the reports by people within the Administration at
Lafayette Park? Any idea?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. I put my phone on Do Not
Disturb last night.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes, OK. Well, apparently, it is a whole lot
more than you ever got when you got that 8.5 percent or so
running for Congress. So, it looks like this is going to serve
you well with the Democratic Party.
But I am still quite concerned about our military. Your job
was to observe the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators.
Were you out there when St. John's was set on fire, there were
two fires set in the church?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I was there that evening. By the time
the church fire was reported, I was over by the Lincoln
Memorial.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you happen to know, of your own personal
knowledge, who the peaceful, loving demonstrator was, or
demonstrators, that set the church on fire?
Major DeMarco. I have no knowledge of who was
demonstrating, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. There apparently were some injuries out there.
Are you familiar with how many law enforcement officers have
been hurt by peaceful, law abiding, loving demonstrators?
Major DeMarco. I am aware of the injuries that occurred
between the periods of May 29 to May 31, which is abhorrent. I
am also aware of the injuries of six National Guard personnel
that were injured during that time frame.
Mr. Gohmert. Were they injured by Park Police?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. They were injured--one was
concussed, I believe, from a projectile, and then others----
Mr. Gohmert. But that was from one of the people that was
just observing his First Amendment rights.
Do you know what Supreme Court cases included in the First
Amendment rights the right to concuss law enforcement?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I have no legal background, so I can't
answer that.
Mr. Gohmert. OK, all right. I am just curious.
Well, I really have no other questions for this witness. I
yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Major DeMarco, let me just get the question. Major, first,
thank you for testifying. And I am concerned about what I had
read about, or learned a little bit about--do you know anything
about army helicopters hovering low over Washington, DC,
relating to the event on June 1?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Dr. Lowenthal. Can you discuss these, and how you know
these claims--what is said to be true? Can you discuss what you
know?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir. After the clearing of H Street, I
was informed by the United States Park Police that there will
be low-flying military helicopters in our area of operations.
Shortly thereafter, I observed the first UH-60 Blackhawk
helicopter flying north of my position, which was at that point
16th and I Street. I observed the helicopter had no distinctive
markings on it. However, the doors were open. When I made that
observation, I then assumed that it was a public affairs
helicopter going around, taking photos of our response, in
support of the United States Park Police.
Later that evening, as the wall, or fence, was being built
along H Street, I then heard radio transmissions over the
radio, the D.C. National Guard internal communications network,
that there was a low-flying helicopter in the vicinity of 15th
Street and F Street, which is near Chinatown. The transmissions
that I was receiving were that there was a low-flying
helicopter, and it was making the pepper spray of the D.C.
Metro Police Department ineffective. I kept hearing this over
the radio. I didn't know what was going on in that area of
operations, as it was out of our sector.
I then called over to the D.C. Armory Joint Operations
Center and spoke to an officer there, and asked him if he had
any information as to what was happening. I told him the report
that I had heard. He then communicated with someone within the
operations center. And I hung up the phone, and that was the
last that I heard of it.
Dr. Lowenthal. Were there any that had medical markings on
them?
And you mentioned earlier that you believe that the Park
Police knew it in advance, or at least that some of these
helicopter operations were to occur. Can you explain that?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir. To your first question, later
reporting indicates that one of the helicopters flying in the
vicinity of 15th Street and F Street had a medical Red Cross
designation on it.
To your second point, the first that I learned about Army
aviation assets being used in this mission was from the United
States Park Police.
Dr. Lowenthal. When helicopters fly this low, is that an
intimidation maneuver?
The Metropolitan Police Department, I believe, complained
that the rotor wash made it hard for them to use pepper spray
or pepper balls.
Major DeMarco. Sir, I am not a pilot, and my aviation
experience is very limited, so I can't speak to the tactics,
techniques, and procedures of our aviation assets and pilots.
Dr. Lowenthal. Does using helicopters in this way strike
you as a sensible or safe way to do it, these operations?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I am not in a position to talk about
the safety or unsafe actions of pilots.
Dr. Lowenthal. But you are aware that the Park Police knew
in advance, at least, that some of these helicopters were going
to be there.
Major DeMarco. Based off of the timeline and the
notification, yes, sir.
Dr. Lowenthal. Again, can you just explain how were these
helicopters to be used? Or did you know that they were used?
Major DeMarco. I was not aware of their task and purpose
within the area of operations.
Dr. Lowenthal. OK, thank you. And I am going to yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. I recognize the
gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Gosar, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, Major DeMarco, you reached the conclusion
that protesters were subject to an unprovoked escalation on
June 1. However, this is a historically different
characterization of events in comparison to what we just heard
from the Chief.
You testified that the D.C. National Guard was outfitted
with standard riot gear. I assume you were, too. Did you not?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. We actually had a shortage of
riot gear. So, when I was on the scene, I had a protective
mask, I had a ballistic vest, but I did not have a baton, a
riot shield, shin guards, or a face visor.
Dr. Gosar. In your testimony, you claim to be the senior
National Guard officer on the scene. Did you make the decision
to fully outfit the D.C. National Guard in riot gear that day?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. That came from the District
of Columbia National Guard commander and commanding general.
Dr. Gosar. So, somebody more senior than you must have
anticipated some level of violence. And you told us six of your
fellows were injured. Did you express any disagreement with
your senior officer about the anticipation of violence prior to
your deployment to the area?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. The uniform and kit that they
were outfitted with is a part of the standard operating
procedures for a response to civil disturbance.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So, you are a military officer. We had a
Member from the other side of the aisle earlier ask the chief
law enforcement officer for our Park Police about the following
of illegal orders. If you thought the protesters were so
peaceful--and again, you were the senior National Guard officer
on the scene--why did you have your soldiers participate in
this mission?
Major DeMarco. Sir, we were there in a static defensive
line. We did not engage in the act of clearing of H Street.
Dr. Gosar. By the way, whose order was it for curfew at 7
o'clock?
Major DeMarco. That was the District of Columbia mayor,
Mayor Muriel Bowser, who instituted that curfew, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Can you tell us just a little bit more about the
six members that were injured? You said one was hit by a
projectile, a concussion.
Major DeMarco. That was the report I received. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. And would you consider that peaceful----
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Now, while you described the protesters as
peaceful, Chief Monahan testified that many protesters were
violent. Please answer the following questions, as we have very
little time, yes or no.
Chief Monahan's written testimony describes bricks and
rocks being thrown at law officers. Would you consider that
peaceful or violent?
Major DeMarco. Violent, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Chief Monahan continued, stating caustic liquids
and water bottles were also projectiles aimed at law
enforcement officers. Would you consider these actions peaceful
or violent?
Major DeMarco. Violent.
Dr. Gosar. Chief Monahan also shared that they lit flares,
and fireworks were even thrown at law enforcement officers.
Would you consider that peaceful or violent?
Major DeMarco. Violent, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Finally, 2x4 sections of wood were thrown at law
enforcement officers. Does this seem peaceful or violent to
you?
Major DeMarco. Violent, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So, let me ask you another question. The
conversation was talking about helicopters. And you said that
you were privy to exactly what was happening. Could it have
been used to take photographs?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Wouldn't that be a smart, intelligent
application, to find out how things are moving from the skies?
Because you are kind of blinded on the ground, are you not?
Major DeMarco. Use of aviation asset for aerial
observations would give you a different lens to look at the
mission, as it unfolded----
Dr. Gosar. Yes, and it would make it more effective, would
it not?
Major DeMarco. It would add a different lens to view the
mission, sir.
Dr. Gosar. But it would make it more effective.
Major DeMarco. There is nothing more effective than the on-
the-ground truth from the Incident Commander or commanders,
sir.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, no, no, no. You want to make sure that you
are seeing all the things happening as they are working. And
you can't see that from your perspective on the ground. You
don't have a 365 viewpoint. You don't know what is being
anticipated, what front is moving, what front is retreating.
You don't know any of that. That is why air power or air
traffic is very good.
I mean, we use it in everyday life in cities for traffic
control, do we not?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I would respectfully disagree from my
time overseas in combat zones. There is nothing more important
than the sensors on the ground, which are our young men and
women in uniform.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I totally disagree with you. Because, I
mean, if we use it for city traffic, why wouldn't we look at
pedestrian traffic, as well?
And the comments to Mr. Gohmert about the church--you
weren't there, so you didn't know what was going on with the
church. So, from my standpoint, coordinated effect, nothing
erroneous about that application.
And once again, I find it disenfranchising to say this is a
peaceful demonstration. Peaceful demonstrations have an
obligation, when they see violence, to turn them in. Otherwise,
you are as guilty by association.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. I would like to place
into the record information relative to Major DeMarco having to
do with West Point, family issues, anticipating questions about
his own character and background, and not only questions, but
attacks in those regards. If there is no objection, so ordered.
And one of the pictures has him taking a picture with him
and George Bush when he was a senior at West Point, George W.
Bush, a known subversive to some people. But nevertheless, I
thought that was important.
Let me recognize Mr. Gallego. Five minutes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Major DeMarco, how long were you at Lafayette Square? When
did you get there?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir. I arrived at approximately 5:30
p.m. that evening.
Mr. Gallego. Which evening, May 29?
Major DeMarco. June 1.
Mr. Gallego. June 1?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. OK. What time, again?
Major DeMarco. About 5:30 p.m. that evening.
Mr. Gallego. Had you been on site before this?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. OK. And would you describe the civilians, the
protesters--how would you describe them on June 1, when you
arrived?
Major DeMarco. On June 1, it was drastically different than
the night before. On June 1, I would describe them as
peacefully assembled.
Mr. Gallego. And we can agree that May 29 there were
violent protesters.
Major DeMarco. Sir, I was only there on May 31.
Mr. Gallego. Oh, OK. What did you observe on May 31?
Major DeMarco. On May 31, I observed a riot.
Mr. Gallego. OK.
Major DeMarco. Based off of Army training publication 3-
39.33, it was classified as a riot.
Mr. Gallego. I would say it was a riot, also. But June 1,
from your estimation, that was not the case. There was peaceful
protesting happening.
Major DeMarco. Based off of that same Army training
publication, correct.
Mr. Gallego. Great. You have extensive training in riot
control and de-escalation training?
Major DeMarco. No formalized training, except for what I am
able to ascertain from our Army training publications and field
manuals. I have never attended the military police course, or
any other additional courses.
Mr. Gallego. Someone within your unit had, though, I am
assuming.
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. OK, give me 1 second here.
So, at 5:30 p.m. you arrive on the scene. Did you get an
assessment report from somebody? Obviously, you were taking
over duty for that time period.
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. We were actually just
arriving. The D.C. National Guard was just arriving.
Mr. Gallego. Just arriving, OK.
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. Who did you meet with there to give you an
assessment of what was happening on the ground?
Major DeMarco. When I first got there, I linked up with my
Park Police liaison, who I had met the previous night.
Mr. Gallego. Yes.
Major DeMarco. And then was introduced to another Park
Police officer, who then gave me the task and purpose.
Mr. Gallego. The Park Police officers, how did they
describe the day to you?
In their connecting with you, did they describe how the day
was, what was the scenario, what was the climate?
Major DeMarco. In the situation brief that I received, it
was much different than the day before.
Mr. Gallego. OK, so what was that, specifically?
Major DeMarco. I can't remember, sir.
Mr. Gallego. OK. Can you describe it? Did they at any point
seem to indicate that the crowd was calmer and more peaceful?
Major DeMarco. That was the general atmosphere, yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. At what point were you told that you were
going to stand in line and form, essentially, a wall, while the
Park Police pushed on the protesters?
Major DeMarco. That was about 5:40, 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Gallego. So, probably like 10 minutes after you
arrived?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. And the reasoning for that was?
Major DeMarco. The stated objective was to, essentially,
clear the area to facilitate this wall or fence to come into
the AO.
Mr. Gallego. But there was never anything that indicated
that this had to happen at X amount of time, or that there was
a sense of urgency that they would have to rush these
protesters for that.
Major DeMarco. So, there was, sir.
Mr. Gallego. OK.
Major DeMarco. When I asked----
Mr. Gallego. Describe that.
Major DeMarco. When I received the mission briefing, I
specifically asked for a timeline of events.
Mr. Gallego. Yes.
Major DeMarco. And I said, ``When is this going to
commence?''
What I heard back was, ``As soon as possible,'' and then I
also heard that they were expecting us to be there much earlier
in the evening.
Mr. Gallego. OK, got it. So, when the protesters actually
started getting pushed back, your standing orders were to what?
Major DeMarco. The D.C. National Guard's standing orders
were to maintain a static perimeter along H Street. And then,
once the sector was cleared, they would then reinforce and
relieve the Park Police on the border.
Mr. Gallego. So, essentially, what you are saying, for my
civilian colleagues, that you were basically owning territory
as you moved.
Major DeMarco. Yes.
Mr. Gallego. So, as the protest pushed out, you guys were
put in lines, a phalanx, not a fence, but a wall, essentially,
and occupying territory so that way no protesters can sneak
through.
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. Have you or has anyone in your unit--when you
saw how they were clearing the protesters, from your
experience, did you find it odd that that was the manner in
which they cleared protesters?
Because, from my experience, and the training I had, I
never would have imagined that the way to clear--especially
peaceful protesters--is by swinging your batons and throwing
tear gas or chemicals into a crowd. Because that only induces
chaos, which creates more resistance.
Did you feel that, or did anyone in your unit think that,
this was a very odd way to clear people?
Major DeMarco. Based off of the application of Army
training publications, I saw that as an ineffective way to de-
escalate the situation.
Mr. Gallego. Right. Did you see any attempts of de-
escalation prior to them moving on the crowd and, not taking
into consideration, obviously, the radio comms situation, which
we heard was problematic?
Major DeMarco. The only other attempt that would fit the
parameters of the Army training publications would be the
proclamation that was given.
Mr. Gallego. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Cox, sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Chairman.
Major DeMarco, in his answers to our questions, Acting
Chief Monahan characterized the crowd at Lafayette Square on
June 1 prior to 6:35 p.m. as violent. In fact, he said in his
written testimony, ``An on-the-ground assessment of the
violence and danger presented by the crowd led to the clearing
of the park and the installation of the fence.''
I would like to play some video from Lafayette Square on
the evening of June 1 and ask you a few questions about it.
Unlike the videos my Republican colleagues played at the last
meeting, this video is actually from Lafayette Square on June
1, not from some other cities or other days or other countries.
Let's play the video.
[Videos shown.]
Mr. Cox. Thanks so much. Those videos show the protest
crowd before the Park Police and the other officers attacked.
Major DeMarco, did that video show a riot or other violent
activity?
Major DeMarco. No, sir.
Mr. Cox. I would certainly agree with that. Did anything
you see in either of those videos justify the way law
enforcement cleared the protesters from the area?
Major DeMarco. Not from those videos. No, sir.
Mr. Cox. I would agree with you on that, again.
And from what you saw, do these videos represent the
overall demeanor of the crowd attending the protests that day?
Major DeMarco. I can't generally characterize the crowd,
but from what I observed, that is correct.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. The fact that Mr. Monahan can't
even acknowledge that the protest day was peaceful tells us
something very troubling about the Administration's conduct
that day. And it should make us all wonder whether our
government even understands the difference between an unruly,
violent mob, and people peacefully exercising their First
Amendment rights.
And even worse is the fact that we are seeing this
Administration continue and expand this authoritarian approach
with these crackdowns in Portland and other major cities. To
me, this is an attack on our democracy. This is an attack on
our Constitution.
Now, I remember when the other side used to call themselves
constitutionalists. We pledge fealty to the Constitution. We
are a constitutional conservative. Where has that gone?
In your testimony here today, I can imagine that this is
putting you in grave, great, maybe professional personal
jeopardy. Would that statement be true?
Major DeMarco. Recent events certainly have me concerned,
sir.
Mr. Cox. And just getting back to the oath that we both
swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States, is that not the bedrock guiding principle that defends
our way of life?
Major DeMarco. I would agree with you 100 percent, sir.
Mr. Cox. And is that why you are here today?
Major DeMarco. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Cox. Well, I think it is a great tribute to our late,
great colleague, Representative John Lewis, that when you see
something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a
moral obligation to say something, to do something. With your
presence here today you are saying something and doing
something. And on behalf of, certainly, a grateful Congressman
here, I want to thank you for your service, and to your family
express my sentiments. I think you are a hero.
With that, I will yield the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me recognize Miss
Gonzalez-Colon for her 5 minutes.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
yield my time to Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. And I appreciate my colleague so much,
personally and professionally. Thank you.
Major, there is a significant difference between Members of
Congress taking the oath office and those of us who have taken
a commissioned officer oath of office, because, obviously, we
are in the military. We have superior officers, whereas in
Congress my superiors are the 800,000 or so that I serve. And I
can't be court martialed for disrespecting the people that I
serve, not that I would do that.
But I am curious. You mentioned in your written statement--
you said, ``I was tasked to serve as a liaison between the DC
National Guard's ``Task Force Civil Disturbance'' and the Park
Police at Lafayette Square.'' Who else was a liaison? You say
you were one of them. You were a liaison. Who else was a
liaison in that capacity?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir. We had several officers that were
liaisons to different agencies across the National Capital
Region. I was just the Park Police liaison for that specific
operation.
Mr. Gohmert. And who tasked you? Who ordered you to take
that position?
Major DeMarco. That was the commander of the Task Force
Civil Disturbance.
Mr. Gohmert. Who?
Major DeMarco. It was the commander, sir. I would rather
not reference his name.
Mr. Gohmert. Oh, so we can't verify that you were tasked
with that position, we are just forced to take your word for
it.
When you say commander, commander of what?
Major DeMarco. The commander of the task force, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. So, that is the D.C. National Guard's Task
Force Civil Disobedience.
Major DeMarco. Disturbance.
Mr. Gohmert. Disturbance, OK.
In your testimony, you stated the materials to erect the
security barrier did not arrive--and I am quoting--``did not
arrive on the scene until around 9 p.m.'' Chief Monahan
testified to a much different timeline, with materials arriving
earlier in the afternoon.
Are you feeling strongly enough about them arriving at 9
p.m. that you would believe Chief Monahan was lying?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I can only speak to my account. And as
a fact witness, the times that I have presented are accurate.
Mr. Gohmert. So, it is not possible, according to you, that
the materials to build the security barrier did not arrive
earlier that afternoon?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I can't talk about hypotheticals. I
could only give you----
Mr. Gohmert. It is not a hypothetical. I am asking you
specifically, is it possible, based on your knowledge and what
you saw and observed, that those materials could have arrived
much earlier?
Major DeMarco. It is certainly a possibility. However,
based off of my statement and timeline of events as a fact
witness, the materials did not arrive on H Street until 9 p.m.
that evening.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, you keep saying you are a fact witness,
but you are also apparently being put up as a legal expert,
because you have indicated a number of times these people were
there to observe their First Amendment rights. And I
understand, with your MBA, that apparently qualifies you to
make constitutional judgments like that.
But isn't it possible that those materials did arrive
earlier, and were at another location at the staging area?
Major DeMarco. It is certainly possible, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. I have nothing further. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Garcia, you recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Major DeMarco, thank you for being here today, and for
providing your honest testimony. Your testimony has been
extremely enlightening, and I think that it makes it even more
clear that what this Administration did that day was not only
inappropriate, but also reckless, and most likely
unconstitutional.
One of the things that you said in your testimony was the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley,
approached you before the incident. After you briefed him,
General Milley told you to ensure that the National Guardsmen
remained calm, and that you all must respect the demonstrators'
First Amendment rights.
Before the law enforcement surge, did you see protest
activity that crossed the line from First Amendment-protected
activity to violence, rioting, and other behavior that we don't
generally consider protected under the Constitution?
Major DeMarco. Sir, based off of Army training publication
3-39.33, specifically chapter 2-14, crowd management tactics,
the situation there would be construed as lawfully assembled.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Aside from the general's comments to
you about the First Amendment, did the general give you any
indication or show any concern that the protesters' rights may
be violated?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir.
Mr. Garcia. OK. What was your reaction to seeing what the
Federal Government did to those protesters as they exercised
their First Amendment rights?
Major DeMarco. I was certainly surprised at the timeline of
events, and certainly the escalation of events.
Mr. Garcia. Very well. Black and Brown communities are
already being ravaged by the deadly virus and an unprecedented
economic crisis. Now they are being terrorized by a threat of a
militarized secret and Federal police force in Washington, DC--
we have discussed it at length today--in Portland, possibly in
Chicago. Trump's violent suppression of demonstrators in
Lafayette Square was not only reckless, it is a direct threat
to our democracy, and it is staring at us in the eye.
The actions leading up to Trump's photo op have drawn
outrage from around the world. The kind of actions we would
normally condemn in other countries are now happening here at
home. Demonstrations like the ones we have witnessed in the
wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and many
others should never be met with deadly force by law
enforcement.
I yield.
The Chairman. Mr. Levin, sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Major DeMarco, you mentioned in your statement that you
have served in combat zones, and understand how to assess
threat environments. With regard to Lafayette Square, you said
that at no time did you feel threatened by the protesters, or
assess them to be violent. Is that correct?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. You also mentioned in your statement that it was
your observation that the use of force against protesters in
the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation. Is that
correct?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. And you also have had extensive training in
dealing with protests and protestors known technically as
``civil disturbances,'' as have all the D.C. National Guard
that were there on June 1. Is that correct?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. Could you please explain the fundamental
strategy of graduated responses specific to civil disturbance,
and why that is important?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir. A graduated response process, as
annotated in Army Training Publication 3-39.33, entitled
``Civil Disturbances,'' is a measured approach to a response--
or in response to a crowd gathering. By recognizing a use-of-
force policy, soldiers must be taught and to understand that
they use the minimum force necessary.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. Please continue.
Major DeMarco. It continues, sir. Without the appearance of
a graduated response, the gathering crowd may consider actions
as excessive, causing a possible escalation of hostilities or
violence.
Mr. Levin. So, what we are hearing is that the widespread
violation of rights at Lafayette Square was acceptable, because
there was violence happening before June 1 and in other places.
In your training, should the events of prior days be used as a
pretext to immediately escalate force?
Major DeMarco. Absolutely not, sir.
Mr. Levin. Now, let's say hypothetically that there was
truly widespread violence. In fact, let's say this was an
actual war zone, where violence was persistent and ubiquitous.
But on one particular day the protests were peaceful.
Major DeMarco, you have done tours of duty in different
places across the globe, including Iraq. If the events on June
1 in Lafayette Square were happening in Iraq when you were
serving, would you have been able to handle protests the way
the Park Police and their partners handled them on June 1?
Major DeMarco. Negative, sir. Based off of the Chemical
Weapons Convention of 1993, ratified by the Senate in 1997, and
FM 6-7, that is incorrect. We would not be able to handle or
use riot control agents in dispersing the crowds.
Mr. Levin. And Major, could you describe in the broadest
terms what the Geneva Convention is, who it is meant for, and
what happens to someone that violates it?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I am not a legal expert. I can't talk
about what happens in violation of the Geneva Convention. But I
can say that it specifically prohibits riot control agents from
being used in a war zone.
Mr. Levin. Major DeMarco, earlier this morning we heard
from Acting Chief Monahan, who said the officers used--and I
quote--``tremendous restraint.'' Based on your training and
your experience, what do you think of that statement from
Acting Chief Monahan?
Major DeMarco. Sir, my opinion, tremendous restraint does
not involve the use of defensive equipment as weapons.
Mr. Levin. So, it wouldn't be tremendous restraint.
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. I will yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Soto, you are
recognized, sir.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Ms. DeGette, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. I am here and thrilled to be included.
The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Major DeMarco, the Administration has given the operation
to install fencing as one excuse why the protesters were
violently cleared from Lafayette Square on June 1, but we know
that the clearing commenced around 6:30 p.m. And you have also
said in your testimony that the crowd did not appear to hear
the warnings, and it was cleared well before the curfew at 7
p.m. You also said in a written statement that the crowd was
peaceful.
You testified that the fencing arrived around 9 p.m. How
did you know that?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I had made visual observations of the
fencing as it arrived on H Street.
Mr. Beyer. And you were pushed back on that by some of my
Republican friends earlier. You were at 16th and H Street,
right? And the fence was supposed to go up along H?
Major DeMarco. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Beyer. And the fence was going to go from Connecticut
Avenue along H, all the way to Vermont along H?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Beyer. And that is about two blocks. And isn't 16th
Street right in the middle of those two blocks?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Wouldn't it have been almost impossible not to
see big trucks pulling up with fences at either end of those
blocks?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Well, I think your testimony on the 9 p.m. is
very, very credible.
Major, based on your training in civil disturbances, when
is the best time to set up a new perimeter or install a fence?
Major DeMarco. Sir, to set up a new perimeter or a new
defensive or security posture would certainly be in the early
morning hours, before the general public would be awake.
Mr. Beyer. Why would it be unwise to set up a new
perimeter, a new fence, in the middle of the day, when the
number of protesters is at its peak?
Does it present any danger to law enforcement personnel, or
to the protesters?
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir. I can't speak for law enforcement
personnel. I can tell you, as a commander, or if I were the
officer in charge, I certainly would not look for the high time
of foot traffic to set those up.
Mr. Beyer. Were you ever told, Major, why the fence
operation was going to go forward during the peak time of the
late afternoon or evening, while the protest was at its peak,
rather than at night, or rather than the next morning?
Major DeMarco. No, sir.
Mr. Beyer. So, I mean, it would certainly make sense that
it should have been set up some time later, when the crowd was
smaller, or after the curfew.
Major DeMarco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Major, you mentioned in your written testimony
that Attorney General Barr was on the scene, talking with the
Park Police shortly before the clearing happened. Is that
correct?
Major DeMarco. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Do you think he had something to do with the
order to clear protesters, or do you believe that this was
simply a remarkable coincidence?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I can't offer my opinion. I can just
give you the facts as I saw them.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. I appreciate that.
So, we have heard a few things: installing fencing in the
middle of a protest is not a sound practice; the fencing didn't
even arrive until hours after the protesters were cleared; the
crowd was peaceful, not adequately warned, dispersed suddenly,
shortly after Attorney General Barr left Lafayette Square; and
President Trump just happened to have a photo op shortly after
the clearing.
Major DeMarco, the crowd wasn't violent, the fencing didn't
arrive until much later. What is the most logical reason you
can think of for why the violent clearing of protesters
happened, given your knowledge and expertise?
Major DeMarco. Sir, I can't hypothesize or speculate onto
the events and why they transpired along the timeline that they
did.
Mr. Beyer. OK, I appreciate your sticking to the facts.
Major, my No. 1 constituent complaint is helicopter noise,
because I represent the district that includes the Pentagon and
much else.
I am trying to think, in the 70 years I have lived in and
around Washington, inaugurations, the Women's March, lots and
lots and lots of marches and demonstrations, any other time
unmarked, low-flying helicopters were used.
Can you remember any other time, with the many different
demonstrations that we have had?
Major DeMarco. No, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Nor can I, which I think was why it was so
upsetting for so many people to have these things that once
again suggested that we are in Afghanistan, rather than in
downtown Washington, DC.
Major, thank you very much for coming forward.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Major DeMarco, let me thank you, and I
appreciate the information, your testimony, and the fortitude
to come forward. Given the reputation and the actions of this
Administration, retaliation and retribution is not beyond them.
And we have many cases to point in that direction. So, I
appreciate it, and all of us do.
Let me ask you some quick questions. And there was one--
yes, Major, does running for Congress disqualify you for being
a truthful person?
Major DeMarco. No, sir.
The Chairman. And I am glad you answered it that way.
Otherwise, many of us would be in a considerable amount of
trouble right now.
Attorney General Barr has said that the June 1 incident was
a result of ordinary planning to extend the perimeter line--we
have already talked about that--around Lafayette Square, having
absolutely nothing to do with giving the President his photo
opportunity at the church.
Based on what you witnessed, what you know about that day,
your testimony, is this satisfactory? Is that explanation
satisfactory?
Major DeMarco. Sir, respectfully, I am not here to
hypothesize. I am just a fact-based witness. I can't talk about
the causation or correlation of events----
The Chairman. One other thing I was going to ask you,
Major, is you testified that no National Guardsman had lethal
or non-lethal munitions that evening at Lafayette Square. Are
you aware of any munitions being readied for use by the
National Guard?
Major DeMarco. On the evening of June 1, the only munitions
that I am aware of is the transfer of weapons from Fort Belvoir
up to the D.C. Armory. And that was my unit.
The Chairman. OK, and what kind of----
Major DeMarco. They were M4 carbines, sir.
The Chairman. And that is an assault rifle?
Major DeMarco. It is an assault rifle variation.
The Chairman. And do you know what the reposition was in
preparation for?
Major DeMarco. I don't know what it was in preparation for,
I just know that my soldiers executed that movement.
The Chairman. OK, thank you. The issue that we are
confronting across this country right now is the question of
the protests across this country. And I think Lafayette was a
precursor and a pretext to a lot of the discussion that is
going on.
And this hearing is not just simply about what happened in
Lafayette Square, but also the pretext and the precedent there.
You might not want to speculate or state the opinion on
that, Mr. DeMarco, but I firmly believe that what happened in
Lafayette Square was a consequence to creating a photo
opportunity, and a campaign theme for President Trump, and that
Attorney General Barr was making the calls all the way along
the line. And we will continue to seek information and pursue
that.
But I also think that what is going on in the Nation right
now, that there are peaceful, lawful First Amendment
demonstrations going on. And the vast majority of people
involved in them are people that respect that, non-violent and
peaceful, just like John Lewis and that legacy.
The opportunists who attempt to hijack that, either for a
political agenda that does not fit into the Black Lives Matter
movement or to a social justice movement, they are political
opportunists. And the criminal opportunists, they see it as a
chance to do other kinds of harms to property. They are going
to take advantage of it.
But to use a broad brush, as this Administration used
Lafayette Square, that everybody that was in that place and
that Square were criminals, anarchists, and bent on destruction
of Federal assets and attacking Federal police--in this
instance, the Park Service--I believe that is absolutely false.
And those false generalizations that are coming by this
Administration and this law and order that they are on, are
just that, generalizations and, in some cases, outright lies.
And I think we should be very concerned about the creeping
authoritarianism that is going on that is making the question
that we are asking here today more and more relevant, and more
and more urgent.
With that, the meeting is adjourned. I yield back, and
thank you very much, Mr. DeMarco.
[Whereupon, at 1:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman
-- 2015 U.S. Park Police Settlement Agreement dated May 10,
2015.
Submission for the Record by Rep. Levin
-- The New York Times article titled, ``Park Police Head Had
Been Accused of Illegal Searches and Unreliable
Testimony,'' dated June 18, 2020.
Submission for the Record by Rep. DeGette
-- USPP Use of Force General Order (No. 3615).
Submission for the Record by Rep. Bishop
-- Letter from Reporters of the Free Press dated June 29,
2020.
[all]