[House Hearing, 116 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2020 ---------- Serial No. 116-83 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2020 __________ Serial No. 116-83 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 46-031 WASHINGTON : 2021 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair ZOE LOFGREN, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,, STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., STEVE CHABOT, Ohio Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida DOUG COLLINS, Georgia KAREN BASS, California KEN BUCK, Colorado CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana MARTHA ROBY, Alabama HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York MATT GAETZ, Florida DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana ERIC SWALWELL, California ANDY BIGGS, Arizona TED LIEU, California TOM McCLINTOCK, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida BEN CLINE, Virginia J. LUIS CORREA, California KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida JOE NEGUSE, Colorado THOMAS TIFFANY, Wisconsin LUCY McBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director ------ C O N T E N T S Tuesday, July 28, 2020 Page OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 2 The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio............................... 4 WITNESSES William Barr, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice Oral Testimony................................................. 9 Written Testimony.............................................. 12 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING A document entitled ``Committee on the Judiciary AV Protocol,'' submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the record......................................................... 8 An article entitled ``Lewis & Clark History Department Chair Shot at Protest,'' Portland Tribune, submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas for the record......................... 28 Items submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Tennessee for the record An article entitled ``Why Trump Chose Portland,'' Slate........ 42 An article entitled ``Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here's the Truth,'' The New York Times....... 50 An article entitled ``I Left the Justice Department after it made a disastrous mistake. It just happened again,'' The Washington Post.............................................. 53 A document entitled ``DOJ Alumni Statement on the Events Surrounding the Sentencing of Roger Stone,'' DOJ Alumni...... 58 A letter from the New York City Bar Association, January 8, 2020......................................................... 154 A letter from members of the District of Columbia Bar, July 22, 2020......................................................... 160 A document entitled ``Statement Regarding Attorney General William H. Barr From Members of The George Washington University Law School Faculty,'' June 23, 2020............... 200 An article entitled ``Rep. Jerry Nadler says Antifa Violence in Portland a `myth,' '' The Washington Times, submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Louisiana for the record........... 212 A report entitled ``Voting by mail and absentee voting,'' MIT, submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Washington for the record......................................................... 260 An entry in the Congressional Record--Senate, September 29, 1989, submitted by the Honorable Lou Correa, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California for the record......................................................... 274 Articles submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania for the record An article entitled ``More than 800 Public Health Experts Call on Congress to Fund Mail-In Voting,'' The Hill............... 398 An article entitled ``Transcript: NPR's Full Interview with Attorney General William Barr,'' NPR......................... 401 An article entitled ``Fact Check: Trump Spreads Unfounded Claims About Voting by Mail,'' NPR........................... 420 An article entitled ``Election Officials Contradict Barr's Assertion that Counterfeit Mail Ballots Produced by a Foreign Country are a `Real' Worry,'' The Washington Post............ 429 An article entitled ``Trump AG Nominee William Barr is a Longtime GOP Donor,'' OpenSecrets News....................... 432 An article entitled ``William Barr's Donations to Senate Republicans Spiked Just Before They Confirmed Him as Attorney General,'' Quartz............................................ 437 Items submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas for the record A memorandum from the Office of the Attorney General, March 26, 2020......................................................... 450 A memorandum from the Office of the Attorney General, April 3, 2020......................................................... 452 An article entitled ``Paul Manafort Released from Prison, Granted Home Confinement Due to Coronavirus Fears,'' The Washington Post.............................................. 455 A statement from Shane Fausey, National President, Council of Prison Locals................................................ 463 A letter from Joel McElvain, July 28, 2020, submitted by the Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia for the record............. 470 Articles submitted by the Honorable Greg Stanton, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona for the record An article entitled `` `An Embarrassment': Trump's Justice Department Goes Quiet on Voting Rights,'' The Guardian....... 480 An article entitled ``William Barr's State of Emergency,'' The New York Times Magazine...................................... 487 An article entitled ``Trump's Assault on Election Integrity Forces Question: What Would Happen if He Refused to Accept a Loss?'' The Washington Post.................................. 499 APPENDIX An article entitled ``Operation Diligent Valor: Trump Showcased Federal Power in Portland, Making a Culture War Campaign Pitch,'' The Washington Post, submitted by the Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California for the record................................... 426 A letter to Attorney General William P. Barr from the Members of Congress, June 4, 2020, submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland for the record............................... 539 A letter to Attorney General William P. Barr and Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf from the Members of Congress, July 22, 2020, submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland for the record......................................................... 547 An article entitled ``As Mueller builds his Russia special- counsel team, every hire is under scrutiny,'' The Washington Post, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania for the record.................................... 556 An article entitled ``Supreme Court won't stop Ohio order for prisoners to be moved or released because of coronavirus,'' The Washington Post, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas for the record........................................... 560 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............ 568 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Tennessee for the record........... 572 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Theodore Deutch, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida for the record............. 574 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Cedric Richmond, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Louisiana for the record........... 575 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............ 576 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California for the record.................... 577 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland for the record............ 580 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Val Demings, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida for the record............. 587 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania for the record........ 589 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia for the record............. 590 Questions for Attorney General William P. Barr, submitted by the Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, and the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida for the record................................ 591 No response recieved from Attorney General William P. Barr OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ---------- Tuesday, July 28, 2020 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:09 a.m., in CVC 200, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Murcarsel- Powell, Escobar, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, Collins, Buck, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, Steube, and Tiffany. Also Present: Representative Hoyer. Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Amy Rutkin, Chief of Staff; Arya Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Sarah Istel, Oversight Counsel; Priyanka Mara, Professional Staff Member; Jordan Dashow, professional Staff Member; Anthony Valdez, Staff Assistant; John Williams, Parliamentarian; Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director; David Brewer, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Tyler Grimm, Minority Chief Advisor for Policy and Strategy; Ella Yates, Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Ken David, Minority Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; Kyle Smithwick, Minority Counsel; Anudeep Buddharaju, Minority Counsel; Michael Koren, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk. Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice. I apologize for beginning the hearing late. As many of you know, I was in a minor car accident on the way in this morning. Everyone is fine, except perhaps the car, but it did cause significant delay. I thank the Attorney General and the Members for their patience and their flexibility, and we will now begin. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge, and I want to note that we are joined this morning by the distinguished Majority Leader, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer. Leader Hoyer has long recognized the need for vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch under both parties, and we appreciate his presence today as we question the Attorney General. Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we have established an email address and distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written materials that Members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If you would like to submit materials, please send them to the email address that has been previously distributed to your offices, and we will circulate the materials to Members and staff as quickly as we can. I would also remind all Members that guidance from the Office of Attending Physician states that face coverings are required for all meetings in an enclosed space, such as this Committee hearing. I expect all Members on both sides of the aisle to wear a mask, except when you are speaking. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Thank you for being here, Mr. Barr. According to the Congressional Research Service, this is the first time you have appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, both during your first tenure as Attorney General 30 years ago and during your current service in the Trump Administration. Welcome. A hundred and fifty years ago last month, in the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress created the Department of Justice. We did so with two missions in mind. First, we wanted to replace a system of party spoils with a corps of professional government attorneys. Yes, these attorneys would be supervised by the Attorney General, and, yes, the Attorney General would remain a political appointee, but, at its heart, the Department would rely on a foundation of professionals dedicated to the impartial Administration of the law and an unbiased system of justice. Second, Congress established the Department of Justice to enforce the Nation's first civil rights laws after the Civil War. From that moment on, it became the Department's responsibility to ensure the right to vote and to stem the tide of systemic racism. Now, not every attorney general in the intervening 150 years has given full expression to these two goals. I am certain that every Administration has fallen short of those promises in some way over time. Today, under your leadership, sir, these two objectives are more at risk than at any time in modern history. Your tenure has been marked by a persistent war against the Department's professional corps in an apparent attempt to secure favors for the President. Others have lost sight of the importance of civil rights laws. Now, we see the full force of the Federal Government brought to bear against citizens demonstrating for the advancement of their own civil rights. There is no precedent for the Department of Justice to actively seek out conflict with American citizens under such a flimsy pretext or for such petty purposes. A hundred fifty years later, we are, again, at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, Mr. Barr. We are confronted with a global pandemic that has killed 150,000 Americans and infected more than 16 million worldwide. We are coming to grips with a civil rights struggle long swept under the rug, if not outright ignored, by our government. We are, as a Nation, witnessing the Federal Government turn violently on its own people. Although responsibility for the government's failure to protect the health, safety, and constitutional rights of the American people belongs squarely to President Trump, he could not have done this alone. He needed help, and after he finished utterly humiliating his first Attorney General, he found you. In your time at the Department, you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the President. Let us recount just some of the decisions that have left us deeply concerned about the Department of Justice. First, under your leadership, the Department has endangered Americans and violated their constitutional rights by flooding Federal law enforcement into the streets of American cities, against the wishes of the State and local leaders of those cities, to suppress dissent forcefully and unconstitutionally. Second, at your direction, Department officials have downplayed the effects of systemic racism and abandoned the victims of police brutality, refused to hold abusive police departments accountable for their actions, and expressed open hostility to the Black Lives Matter movement. Third, in coordination with the White House, the Department has spread disinformation about voter fraud, failed to enforce voting rights laws, and attempted to change the Census rules to flaunt the plain text of the Constitution, and even defied court orders on this subject, all in the apparent attempt to assist the President's reelection. Fourth, at the President's request, the Department has amplified the President's conspiracy theories and shielded him from responsibility by blatantly misrepresenting the Mueller Report and failing to hold foreign actors accountable for their attacks on our elections, undermining both national security and the Department's professional staff in the process. Fifth, again and again, you personally have interfered with ongoing criminal investigations to protect the President and his allies from the consequences of their actions. When career investigators and prosecutors resisted these brazen, unprecedented actions, you replaced them with less-qualified staff who appear to be singularly beholden to you. The message these actions send is clear. In this Justice Department, the President's enemies will be punished, and his friends will be protected, no matter the cost to liberty, no matter the cost to justice. Finally, and perhaps most perniciously, the Department has placed the President's political needs over the public health by challenging stay-at- home orders in the States hit hardest by the pandemic. The Department's persistent efforts to gut the Affordable Care Act will make recovery that much harder. These actions come at a price: Real damage to our democratic norms, the erosion of the separation of powers, and the loss of faith in the equal Administration of justice. In the hands of President Trump, a Department of Justice that adopts a dangerously-expansive view of executive power and demonstrates a willingness to shield him from accountability represents a direct threat to the liberty and safety of the country. We were warned. At your confirmation hearing, Professor Neil Kinkopf testified, and I quote, ``Public confidence in the rule of law depends on there being an attorney general who will not allow the President to do whatever he wants with the Justice Department. William Barr's views of presidential power are so radically mistaken, that he is simply the wrong man at the wrong time to be Attorney General of the United States.'' Again, this failure of leadership comes at great cost. This Administration has twisted the Department of Justice into a shadow of its former self, capable of serving most Americans only after it has first served those in power. This Committee has responsibility to protect Americans from that kind of corruption, Mr. Barr. We have a responsibility to ensure that the Justice Department and its Attorney General administer justice equally and fairly, and this is what has brought us to this hearing room today. We want to give you a chance to respond to our questions to these and other matters, and we hope and expect that you will do so in a clear and forthright manner. Our Members expect sincere answers today, and our country deserves no less. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement. Mr. Jordan. Spying. That one word. That is why they are after you, Mr. Attorney General. Fifteen months ago, April 10th, 2019, in a Senate hearing, you said this sentence: ``I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.'' ``Spying on a political campaign is a big deal.'' It sure is, and since that day you had the courage to State the truth, they attacked you. They have been attacking you ever since, every day, every week for simply stating the truth that the Obama/Biden Administration spied on the Trump Campaign. One year ago, a New York Times headline said this. One year ago: ``FBI Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016.'' The FBI sent a young lady, who used the name Azra Turk, to meet Papadopoulos in September of 2016. It said it sent someone pretending to be someone else to meet a person associated with the Trump Campaign. Do you know what they call that? Do you know what they call that? Spying. One month later, October 2016, they used a dossier to spy on Carter Page, a salacious unverified dossier. Jim Comey's words, not mine. They took it to the FISA Court and didn't tell the Court that the Clintons paid for it. Didn't tell the Court that the guy who wrote the document, Christopher Steele, had already communicated to the Justice Department that he was ``desperate to stop Trump from getting elected.'' Guess what? There were 15 more lies that they told the Court, 17 in total. They are outlined by the inspector general, each and every one of them, in his 400-page report. Guess what? Chair Nadler refused to allow Mr. Horowitz to come here and testify and answer our questions about the 17 lies the Obama/ Biden Administration told to the secret court. The Obama/Biden DOJ opened the investigation in July. They used the secret agency lady to spy on Papadopoulos in August, they lied to the FISA Court in September, and they did all this without any basis for launching the investigation to begin with. How do we know that? How do we know there was no basis? They told us. Now, they didn't want to tell us, but thanks to Rick Grenell, who released the transcripts of their testimony, we now know there was no basis for them to start the investigation in the first place. Sally Yates, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice. Here is what Susan Rice says: ``I don't recall intelligence I would consider evidence of a conspiracy.'' How about James Clapper? ``I never saw any direct evidence that the Trump Campaign or someone in it was conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.'' Say that again. ``I never saw evidence that the Trump Campaign was conspiring,'' and yet they investigated him. There was never a proper predicate, so why did they do it? There was no reason to do it. Why did they do it? They told us that, too. Peter Strzok, August 2015, asked, ``Is Trump going to win?'' What is his response? Remember this is Peter Strzok. This is the guy who ran the investigation. ``No. No, he is not. We will stop it.'' August, Peter Strzok says we will stop Trump. September, they spy on Papadopoulos. October, they use the fake dossier to lie to the Court. Guess what happens in November? Guess what happens in November? November 8th, 2016. The American people get in their way, 63 million of them to be exact. Now everything changes. Now the real focus is, wow, wait a minute. We didn't stop him. He won. Now, what do they have to do? They have to do the cover-up, and who do they have to go after? Who is target number one in their cover-up? The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the guy who is about to become national security adviser to the President of the United States, Michael Flynn. They can't have him hanging around because he will figure it out. So, they decide to go after Michael Flynn, a three-star general, served our country for over 3 decades. We know they went after him because they told us that, too. Bill Priestap, head of counterintelligence at the FBI, the day they interviewed Flynn, January 24th, 2017. His notes say what? What is our goal? To get Flynn to lie so we can prosecute him or to get him fired. Think about what the Obama/Biden DOJ, what their Administration did in the last month they were in power. January 4th. The agents investigating Flynn want to drop the case. Comey tells them no. January 5th they have the now- famous meeting in the Oval Office--Obama, Biden, Rice, and Comey. All of them are in there. They are plotting their strategy, how they are going to get Flynn. January 6th, Comey goes up to Trump Tower, briefs President-Elect Trump on the dossier that they already know is false just so they could leak it to the press and the press will write the story that they briefed the President on the dossier. Then, of course, January 24th is the day they go set up Michael Flynn in his interview. Guess what else they did? Guess what else they did between Election Day and Inauguration Day? That 2-month time period, guess what else they did? Thirty-eight people, 49 times unmasked Michael Flynn's name: Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Biden. Seven people at the Treasury Department unmasked Michael Flynn's name, for goodness' sake. Of course, Flynn resigns on February 13th. Flynn resigns on February 13th. Now, the cover- up is complete. Flynn is gone. Everything is fine they think until May 9th, 2017, when President Trump fires Jim Comey. Now, they got a problem again. The guy who was going to keep it all quiet, he has been fired. Now, how do they continue the cover-up? Real simple. Jim Comey leaks his memos with the express purpose of getting a special counsel to investigate something they already know is not true, and that is exactly what happened. We get 2 years, 19 lawyers, 500 witnesses, 2,800 subpoenas, and a $30-million cost to the taxpayer, and they come up with nothing. Absolutely nothing. So, all they got left is to attack the Attorney General who had the courage to State the truth right from the get-go the first time he testifies after he is confirmed, and you guys attack him every day, every week. Now, you file articles of impeachment against him. It is ridiculous. He had the courage to do what no one else would do at the Justice Department. Sally Yates would not call it spying. Jeff Sessions wouldn't do it. Rod Rosenstein wouldn't do it. Chris Wray sure as heck isn't going to do it. So, Attorney General Barr, I want to thank you for having the courage to call it what it was: Spying. I want to thank you for having the courage to say we are going to get the politics out of the Department of Justice that was there in the previous Administration. Maybe, most important, and we are going to talk about this in our questioning, I want to thank you for defending law enforcement, for pointing out what a crazy idea this defund the police policy, whatever you want to call it, is, and standing up for the rule of law. Frankly, we have a video we want to show that gets right to this point. Can we play that video, please? [Video shown.] Chair Nadler. Well, I hope that Mr. Jordan will never complain about the length of my opening statement. Without objection, I am going to insert the committee's audio/visual policy into the record of this hearing and note that the minority did not give the Committee the 48-hour notice required by that policy. [The information follows:] CHAIR NADLER FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Nadler. Without objection, other opening statements will be included in the record. I will now introduce today's witness. William Barr has served as the Attorney General of the United States since February 14th, 2019, having previously served in the same position from 1991 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. He also served as deputy attorney general and assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush Administration, was a member of the domestic policy staff under President Reagan, served in the Central Intelligence Agency, and was a law clerk for Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In addition to his significant public service, he also has extensive experience practicing law in the private sector. Attorney General Barr received his A.B. and M.A. from Columbia University and a J.D. from George Washington University School of Law. We welcome the Attorney General, and we thank him for participating today. Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? Attorney General Barr. I do. Chair Nadler. Let the record show the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated. Please note that your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your 5 minutes have expired. Mr. Barr, you may begin. TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE WILLIAM BAR Attorney General Barr. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Jordan. I am pleased to be here this morning. On behalf of the Department of Justice, I want to pay my respects to your colleague, Congressman John Lewis, an indomitable champion of civil rights and the rule of law. I think it is especially important to remember today that he pursued his cause passionately and successfully with unwavering commitment to nonviolence. As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial Administration of justice. He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally, and that criminal cases are handled evenhandedly based on the law and the facts and without regard to political or personal considerations. I can tell you that I have handled criminal matters that have come to me for decision in this way. The President has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right, and that is precisely what I have done. Indeed, it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is right that induced me to serve once again as Attorney General. As you just said, Mr. Chair, I served as Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, and after that, I spent many years in the corporate world. I was almost 70 years old and slipping happily into retirement. I had nothing to prove, and I had no desire to return to government. I had no prior relationship with President Trump. Let me turn briefly to the several pressing issues of the day. The horrible killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis understandably jarred the whole country and forced us to reflect on longstanding issues in the Nation. Those issues obviously relate to the relationship between law enforcement and the African-American community. Given our history, it is understandable that among Black Americans, there would be some ambivalence and often distrust toward the police. Until just the last 50 years ago or so, our laws and institutions were explicitly racist, explicitly discriminatory. It was not until the 60s that the Civil Rights Movement finally succeeded in tearing down the Jim Crow edifice. Our laws finally came to formally embody the guarantee of equal protection, and since then, the work of securing civil rights has rightly focused on reforming institutions to ensure they better conform to our laws and to our aspirations. That work, it is important to acknowledge, has been increasingly successful. Police forces today are more diverse than they've ever been, and there are both more Black police chiefs and more Black officers in the ranks. Although the death of George Floyd at the hands of the police was a shocking event, the fact is that these events are fortunately quite rare. According to statistics compiled by the Washington Post, the number of unarmed Black men killed by police so far this year is eight, the number of unarmed White men killed by police over the same period of time is 11, and the overall numbers of police shootings have been decreasing. Nevertheless, every instance of excessive force is unacceptable and must be addressed appropriately through legal process as is happening now in Minneapolis. Apart from the numbers, I think these events strike a deep chord in the Black community because they are perceived as manifestations of a deeper, lingering concern that in encounters with police, blacks will not be treated evenhandedly. They will not be given the benefit of the doubt. They will be treated with greater suspicion. Senator Tim Scott has recounted the numerous times he's been unjustifiably pulled over on Capitol Hill, and, as one prominent Black professional in Washington said to me, African Americans often feel treated as suspects first and citizens second, and I think these concerns are legitimate. At the same time, I think it would be an oversimplification to treat the problem as rooted in some deep-seated racism generally infecting our police departments. It seems far more likely that the problem stems from a complex mix of factors which can be addressed with focused attention over time. We in law enforcement must be conscious of the concerns and ensure that we do not have two systems of justice. Unfortunately, some have chosen to respond to George Floyd's death in a far less productive way by demonizing the police, promoting slogans like, ``All cops are bastards,'' and making grossly irresponsible proposals to defund the police. The demonization of the police is not only unfair and inconsistent with principles that all people should be treated as individuals, but gravely injurious to the inner-city communities. When communities turn on and pillory the police, officers naturally become more risk averse, and crime rates soar. Unfortunately, we are seeing that now in many of our cities. The threat to Black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct. The leading cause of death for young Black males is homicide. Every year, approximately 7,500 Black Americans are victims of homicide. The vast majority of them, around 90 percent, are killed by other blacks, mainly by gunfire. Each of those lives matter. It is for this reason that in selected cities where there has been an upsurge in violent crime, we are stepping up and bolstering the activities of our joint anti- crime task forces. Finally, I want to address a different breakdown in the rule of law that we've witnessed over the past 2 months. In the wake of George Floyd's death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims. The current situation in Portland is a telling example. Every night for the past 2 months, a mob of hundreds of rioters have laid siege to the Federal courthouse and other nearby Federal property. The rioters have come equipped for a fight, armed with powerful slingshots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles, and explosive devices. Inside the courthouse are a relatively small number of Federal law enforcement personnel charged with a defensive mission: To protect the courthouse. What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called protest. It is, by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States. As elected officials of the Federal Government, every member of this committee, regardless of your political views or your feelings about the Trump Administration, should condemn violence against Federal officers and the destruction of Federal property. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your listing for me the areas of concern in your opening statement, and I'm looking forward to addressing them all. [The statement of Attorney General Barr follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Nadler. Thank you for your testimony. We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. On July 22nd, you joined the President as he announced the expansion of Operation Legend, an initiative to combat violent crime in Kansas City, with approximately $61 million in DOJ grants. I am confused, however, as to the purpose of launching Operation Legend at this moment in time. In December of last year, you announced that the Department would divert over $70 million in grants to seven U.S. cities under an initiative called Operation Relentless Pursuit, correct? Attorney General Barr. That is right. Chair Nadler. Operation Relentless Pursuit targeted a familiar list of cities, places like Albuquerque, Baltimore, and Kansas City, correct? Attorney General Barr. Correct. Chair Nadler. At the same July 22nd press conference, you initially claimed that over 200 arrests had been made under Operation Legend, correct? Attorney General Barr. Correct. Chair Nadler. You misspoke. Attorney General Barr. Correct. Chair Nadler. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Missouri later confirmed that only a single arrest had been made under the auspices of Operation Legend, correct? Attorney General Barr. I don't know. Chair Nadler. The 199 other arrests were made under Relentless Pursuit or other programs. Well, that was correct. I think you could be forgiven for being confused. Operation Legend appears to be little more than a repackaging of existing operations in these cities. So why all the drama? Why join the President and the White House to announce a bold new operation that appears to be neither bold nor new? Understandably, Americans are very suspicious of your motives here. There are those who believe you are sending Federal law enforcement into these cities not to combat violent crime, but to help with the President's reelection efforts. The President has made clear that he wants conflict between protesters and police to be an essential theme of his campaign. So, let me ask you directly, Mr. Barr, yes or no, did you rebrand existing projects, like Operation Legend, in order to assist the President in an election year? Attorney General Barr. I wouldn't call it-- Chair Nadler. Mr. Attorney General, would you agree with me at least on principle that it is improper for the Department of Justice to divert resources and law enforcement personnel in an effort to assist the President's reelection campaign? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Chair, in the fall, we did inaugurate an anti-crime initiative because we were concerned about increasing violent crime in a number of cities, and we called that Relentless Pursuit. Unfortunately, COVID intervened, and our agents who were detailed for these assignments could not perform the operation. So, the operation was squelched by COVID, so we couldn't complete or make much progress on Relentless Pursuit. However, in the intervening time, we saw violent crime continuing to rise, and a lot of that was triggered by the events after the death of George Floyd. So, we did reboot the program after COVID started breaking and we could commit the law enforcement resources to actually accomplish the mission, which is to reduce violent crime. Now, I regret that COVID interrupted our law enforcement activities, but it doesn't obviate the fact that there is serious violent crime in these cities. These police departments and mayors have been asking us for help, and we have put in additional Federal agents and investigators to help deal with it. Chair Nadler. Now, yes or no. Have you discussed the President's reelection campaign with the President, or with any White House official, or any surrogate of the President? Attorney General Barr. Well, I am not going to get into my discussions with the President. Chair Nadler. Well, have you discussed that topic with him, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. Not in relation to this program. Chair Nadler. I didn't ask that. I asked if you discussed that with-- Attorney General Barr. I am a member of the Cabinet, and there is an election going on. Obviously, the topic comes up. Chair Nadler. So, the answer is yes. The answer is yes. Attorney General Barr. Well, the topic comes up in Cabinet meetings and other things. Chair Nadler. Okay. Attorney General Barr. It shouldn't be a surprise that the topic of the election-- Chair Nadler. I didn't say I was surprised. I just asked if you have done that. So, as part of those conversations with the President or his people about the reelection campaign, have you ever discussed the current or future deployment of Federal law enforcement? Attorney General Barr. In connection with what? Chair Nadler. In connection with what you just said. In connection with your discussions with the President or with other people around him of his reelection campaign, have you discussed the current or future deployment of Federal law enforcement? Attorney General Barr. Well, as I said, I am not going to get into my discussions with the President, but I have made it clear that I would like to pick the cities based on law enforcement need and based on neutral criteria. Chair Nadler. So, but you can't tell me whether you discussed-- Attorney General Barr. No, I am not going to discuss what I discussed with the President. Chair Nadler. Can you commit today that the Department will not use Federal law enforcement as a prop in the President's reelection campaign? Attorney General Barr. We are not using Federal law enforcement-- Chair Nadler. I just want to close with this thought. You really can't hide behind legal fictions this time, Mr. Barr. It is all out in the open where the people can see what you are doing for themselves. The President wants footage for his campaign ads, and you appear to be serving it up to him as ordered. In most of these cities, the protests had begun to wind down before you marched in and confronted the protesters. The protesters aren't mobs. They are mothers and veterans and mayors. In this moment, real leadership would entail de- escalation, collaboration, and looking for ways to peaceably resolve our differences. Instead, you use pepper spray and truncheons on American citizens. You did it here in Washington. You did it in Lafayette Square, and you expanded it to Portland. Now you are projecting fear and violence nationwide in pursuit of obvious political objectives. Shame on you, Mr. Barr. Attorney General Barr. Can I just say, Mr. -- Chair Nadler. Shame on you. My time has expired. For what purpose does Mr. Jordan seek recognition? Attorney General Barr. Could I just for one moment-- Chair Nadler. My time has expired. For what does Mr. Johnson seek recognition? Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Questions for the witness, and I will yield the floor to him to respond. Attorney General Barr. Mr. Chair, you have conflated two different things. The effort, like Legend, is to deal with violent crime that is committed on the streets of the city, again, predatory violence, like murder, shootings, which are soaring in some cities right now. That does not involve encountering protesters, as you refer to it. Civil disturbance is a different set of issues, and I just reject the idea that the Department has flooded anywhere and attempted to suppress demonstrators. We make a clear distinction between demonstrators, Mr. Chair. Chair Nadler. The facts speak for themselves. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This is my time. Let him answer. Attorney General Barr. The fact of the matter is, if you take Portland, the courthouse is under attack. The Federal resources are inside the perimeter and around the courthouse defending it from almost 2 months of daily attacks where people march to the court, try to gain entrance, and have set fires, thrown things, used explosives, and injured police, including, just this past weekend, perhaps permanently blinding three Federal officers with lasers. We are on the defense. We are not out looking for trouble. If the State and the city would provide the law enforcement services that other jurisdictions do, we would have no need to have additional marshals in the courthouse. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. On behalf of hundreds of millions of Americans, thank you for that clarification, and thank you for being here. Thank you for your service today and your willingness to do this in very challenging times. Mr. Attorney General, we are very appreciative. It is not an easy job. It is a vitally important one. I so appreciated what you said in your opening statement today, which is what you said in your confirmation hearing. The Attorney General has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial Administration of justice. We appreciate that so much. The Democrats have asserted here this morning and they continue to say in the media that under your leadership, the Justice Department has become highly politicized. Why is that a totally unfounded allegation? Attorney General Barr. Because actually what I have been trying to do is restore the Rule of Law, and the Rule of Law is, in essence, that we have one rule for everybody. If you apply one Rule to A, the same rule applies to B, and I felt we didn't have that previously at the Department. We had strayed. I would just ask people, I'm supposedly punishing the President's enemies and helping his friends. What enemies have I indicted? Could you point to one indictment that has been under the Department that you feel is unmerited, that you feel violates the Rule of Law? One indictment. Now, you say I help the President's friends. The cases that are cited--the Stone case and the Flynn case--were both cases where I determined that some intervention was necessary to rectify the Rule of Law to make sure people are treated the same. Stone was prosecuted under me, and I said all along I thought that was a righteous prosecution. I thought he should go to jail, and I thought the judge's sentence was correct. The line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice anyone else in a similar position had ever served. This is a 67-year-old man, first-time offender, no violence, and they were trying to put him in jail for 7-9 years, and I wasn't going to advocate that because that is not the Rule of Law. I agree the President's friends don't deserve special breaks, but they also don't deserve to be treated more harshly than other people, and sometimes that is a difficult decision to make, especially when you know you are going to be castigated for it. That is what the Rule of Law is, and that is what fairness to the individual ultimately comes to, being willing to do what is fair to the individual. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Amen, and thank you for that. By contrast, what the previous DOJ did under the previous Administration was politicize law enforcement. The Obama/Biden Administration sabotaged the Trump transition. It illegally spied on the Trump Campaign. They unmasked Members of the Trump Campaign. They employed aggressive tactics on their campaign officials. Senior FBI officials, we all know on this committee, carried over from the Obama Administration, carried on their abuses into the Trump Administration and into the whole impeachment scam and all the rest. Let me ask you just one question because my time is running out. President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, famously referred to himself as President Obama's wingman. He said in an interview, ``I'm still enjoying what I am doing. There's still work to be done. I am still the President's wingman, so I am there with my boy.'' That is what he said famously. Is it the duty of the Attorney General to be the President's wingman? Attorney General Barr. No, I have already described what I think the duty is of the Attorney General. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. In your office, you are then free to Act independently of the President. Isn't that true? Attorney General Barr. That is true, particularly on criminal cases. It is required. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is exactly what he has asked you to do. Isn't that correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I have no further time. I yield back. Thank you. Chair Nadler. It is well you have no further questions. Your time has expired. Ms. Lofgren? Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, it is obvious what is happening from the video played during the Ranking Member's opening remarks. It is clear that the President's playbook is to divert attention from his catastrophic failure in dealing with the COVID-19 situation. In Canada, our neighbor to the north, in Europe, the virus has been reduced to such a level that people can safely go out and not worry about being infected, but here in the United States, millions of Americans have been affected. 10s of thousands are dying, and the President needs to divert from that failure. What is the playbook? The playbook is to create the impression that there is violence, that he must send in Federal troops, and that the American people should be afraid of other Americans and trust the President because he's going to send in troops to American cities, and that is how he hopes to win the election. It is one thing to fight crime with joint task forces. That involves the cooperation of State and local officials. The governor of Oregon and the mayor of Portland has asked that the Federal troops leave because the reaction has actually been in reverse proportion. People are showing up because the troops are there. I would say that so many of them, I would say most of them, are nonviolent. We have all heard about the Wall of Moms, the Wall of Moms who show up to make sure that people are safe, and here's what they say. They say they have been teargassed night after night, left vomiting, that they have been shot at with rubber bean bags and pepper spray. So, this brutality has created even more demonstrators. I would just like to ask you this. When the President issued his executive order, it indicated your Department should prioritize investigations. Has your Department started any investigation pursuant to the executive order that the President issued? Attorney General Barr. Which executive order, Congresswoman? Ms. Lofgren. The executive order that asked for the deployment of troops to protect the monuments and the Federal facilities on June 26th. Attorney General Barr. Yeah, I wouldn't say it was troops, but we have initiated investigations, yes, and we have made arrests of people who have been rioting and taking down statues. I think your characterization of Portland is completely false. Ms. Lofgren. We can get into that, but I would like to ask you a question about surveillance, if I may. We have heard reports that cell site stimulators, known as stingrays or dirtboxes, are being used to collect phone call location and even content of phone calls. Those are being used, and they have facial recognition for cell phones and intercept technology, and that there is bulk collection of internet browsing history. What specific authority is the Department using for these surveillance tools? Attorney General Barr. I really can't speak to those instances if they have, in fact, occurred. I am glad to go and try to determine what you are talking about. Ms. Lofgren. Actually, I am asking about authority, not the-- Attorney General Barr. Well, I think most of our cyber activities are conducted by the FBI under their law enforcement powers to detect and prevent Federal crime. Ms. Lofgren. I think the American public should know that this surveillance technique is just about the people, you know, in front of the courthouse. If a husband and wife call each other, and one of the spouses has a cell phone that is within range of one of these technologies, not only the location, but the actual content of that couples' conversation can be scooped up using this technology. So, this really isn't just about the demonstrating. This is about the privacy of all Americans, and it is all being violated for the President's political purposes of trying to create a scene, create a reason to divert attention from the COVID failure. I think it is really very unfortunate and a disservice to the American people. Mr. Chair, my time has expired. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose-- Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, point of order really quick. Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his point of order. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Could you ask those Members who choose not to come to work to silence their cell phones on the video because it is distracting to what we are doing here today. Chair Nadler. That is not a point of order. I now recognize Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Attorney General, would it be accurate to say that it is this Administration's responsibility and, of course, you are part of the Administration, to see that Federal laws are upheld, and that the Federal property is secure and safe and protected? Is that correct? Attorney General Barr. That is right, Congressman. They are sort of distinct missions. One mission is to enforce Federal law, and, by the way, the Federal Government is the sovereign of the United States. We have two sovereigns here in the United States, and we enforce the Federal law all over the country. Every square foot of the country, we enforce Federal law. The other is protecting Federal property, and specifically U.S. courthouses which are the heart of Federal property in all 93 jurisdictions in the United States. We have the obligation to protect Federal courts, and the U.S. Marshals specifically have been given that obligation. Federal courts are under attack. Since when is it okay to try to burn down a Federal court? If someone went down the street to the Prettyman Court here, that beautiful courthouse we have right at the bottom of the hill, and started breaking windows and firing industrial-grade fireworks in to start a fire, throw kerosene balloons in and start fires in the court, is that okay? Is that okay now? No, the U.S. Marshals have a duty to stop that and defend the courthouse, and that is what we are doing in Portland. We are at the courthouse defending the courthouse. We are not out looking for trouble. Mr. Chabot. Thank you, General. As far as weapons and devices that were utilized by the group of people, and you mentioned trying to destroy the courthouse. I mean, they were literally trying to burn it down and apparently didn't give a hoot about the people that were occupying the building as well. So, people were in danger. Attorney General Barr. That is absolutely right. Mr. Chabot. So, as far as the weapons that you mentioned, let me get this straight. My understanding is that the people attacking the building had, among other things, rifles, explosives, knives, saws, sledgehammers, tasers, slingshots, rocks, bricks, and lasers. Have I missed anything, or does that about cover it? Attorney General Barr. You have missed some things, but that is a good list. They have these powerful slingshots with ball bearings that they shoot. They have used pellet guns we believe. We have found those projectiles that have penetrated marshals to the bone, and they use the lasers to blind the marshals. They do start fires. They start fires if they can get the fire inside or through the windows and start fires along the outside of the courthouse. When the marshals come out to try to deal with the fire, they are assaulted. Mr. Chabot. General, if local elected officials--mayors, city councils, and governors--did their jobs and kept the peace, would it even be necessary for Federal law enforcement personnel to be there in the first place? Attorney General Barr. No, and that is exactly the point. Look around the country. Even where there are these kinds of riots occurring, we haven't had to put in the kind of reinforcements that we have in Portland because the State and local law enforcement does their job and won't allow rioters to come and just physically assault the courthouse. In Portland, that is not the case. Mr. Chabot. General, some have derisively referred to these law enforcement personnel as stormtroopers and worse. Does that accurately describe them? Would you like to set the record straight? Attorney General Barr. No, they are obviously not stormtroop- ers. Normally we would have a group of deputy marshals in a court that would be in business suits and ties or regular civilian dress. Those would be the deputy marshals as the protective force for the court. After almost a month of rioting in Portland, I think it was around the 4th of July time frame, we sent in about 20 special operations marshals. Those are tactical teams that are padded and protected so they can deal with this kind of thing. Up until last week, I was told our stormtroopers from the Department of Justice amounted to 29 marshals in the courthouse. Twenty-nine marshals. Until recently increased, I think there were 95, I was told, 95 DHS, and Federal Protective Service, and other DHS officers trying to protect the courthouse and three other buildings. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to protect Federal functions and Federal buildings, which are very small part of the city. The rioters go at them, and we have gradually increased our numbers there to try to protect those facilities. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Attorney General Barr. If the State would come in and keep peace on the streets in front of the courthouse, we wouldn't need additional people at the courthouse. Mr. Chabot. Thank you, General. My time has expired. Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Jackson Lee? Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, before I begin, I would like to submit into the record a picture of a Lewis and Clark history department chair shot at protests in Portland. I ask unanimous consent to place that into the record. [The information follows:] MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Jackson Lee. John Lewis in 1963 said, ``We are tired of being beat by police. We are tired of being put in jail. We want our freedom now.'' Mr. Attorney General, in your remarks, you indicated that we have made great progress since that time, and you indicated that the killing of George Floyd was shocking. I disagree. It was outright cold-blooded murder on the streets of America, unfortunately by police misconduct. You seem to have a difficult time understanding the systemic racism and institutional racism that has plagued so many. Mr. Attorney General, do you understand a Black mother's or parent's talk to their child, to their son? Do you know what that is? Attorney General Barr. I think I do. Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't know if you do, but Trayvon Martin, Ahmaud Arbery, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Sean Bell, and George Floyd. Black mothers and fathers have had to talk to their sons about police violence. I take no back seat to the history of this Committee that has stood for good policing, not misconduct. So, I ask you this question: Does the Trump Justice Department seek to end systemic racism and racism in law enforcement? I just need a yes or no answer. Attorney General Barr. To the extent there is racism in any of our institutions in this country and the police, then obviously this Administration will fully enforce the-- Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you agree that there may be systemic racism. Attorney General Barr. Where? Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me continue my line of questioning. Attorney General Barr. I don't agree that there is systemic racism in police departments generally in this country. Ms. Jackson Lee. Specifically, I am reclaiming my time, Mr. General. Specifically, so you understand the violent impact of racial profiling, and do you support the end racial and religious profiling in the George Floyd bill, including the removal of the strict interpretation of qualified immunity, which would leave individuals like, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, without any relief at all? Attorney General Barr. No, I am opposed to eliminating qualified immunity, and I don't agree that it would leave the victims of police misconduct-- Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me share with you some aspects-- Attorney General Barr. --without any remedy-- Ms. Jackson Lee. I am reclaiming my time. Let me share with you some aspects of profiling. After the death of George Floyd, it was found that while Black people make up 19 percent of the Minneapolis population and 9 percent of its police. They were on the receiving end of 58 percent of the city's police use of force incidents. In addition, we have seen that Black men are twice as likely to be stopped and searched, Hispanic drivers' 65 percent to receive a ticket, and Native Americans in Arizona three times more likely to search and be stopped. Let me ask you the questions of how we respond to that. The Justice Department has many tools at its disposal to reduce police violence. The pattern or practice investigations, a practice to end bad policing and police violence. It addresses police violence at an institution level rather than just focuses on acute cases. If you understand that, then why has your Department only pursued one pattern or practice investigation since President Trump took office that could stop systemic racism? Attorney General Barr. If you read my statement or listened to my statement, I did specifically acknowledge that there was a difficulty in this country with the African-American community. Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Attorney General, I have short time. Can you please tell me why you have not done a pattern and practice? Attorney General Barr. Well, I'd like to be able to answer the question. Ms. Jackson Lee. What was the reason? Attorney General Barr. You asked me what I thought the response was, and I thought the response to this is, in fact, the training of police, and I think the police believe that that's the response. I was talking to a Black chief of police who-- Ms. Jackson Lee. Then let me continue. Mr. Attorney General, I want to respect you, but I have a short time. For example, 18 U.S.C. 242, which makes unlawful the denial of rights under the color of law, can you defend the fact that in the first 7 months of fiscal year 2020, Federal prosecutors filed only 242 charges--242 charges in just 27 cases in the Trump DOJ? Were you aware that in fiscal year 2019, Federal prosecutors brought two section 242 charges in just 49 cases in the United States? Are you aware of how many cases we have had? 184,274. Which means that in fiscal year 2019, only about 27 out of every 100,000 prosecutions was related to section 242 charges. Do you have a reason for that? Attorney General Barr. Yeah. Yes, I do. I will get you the numbers on it. I don't know them off the top of my head. Actually, our criminal prosecutions under 241 and 242 are extremely strong and are comparable to, if not exceed, prior Administrations. At the beginning of this year, most of the--very few jurisdictions had grand juries that were open. No grand juries. Ms. Jackson Lee. I think the reason is because it was really skinny. It was not your focus. Your focus was more to let out friends like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, while Tamir Rice, whose case has not been taken up, was playing with a toy gun, was killed by police at the age of 12. Breonna Taylor was sleeping in her apartment when she was killed by police at age 26, and Rayshard Brooks, 27, was killed just for sleeping in his car in a Wendy's parking lot. George Floyd from Houston, Texas, known as a humble man, was murdered in the streets of Minneapolis, crying, ``I can't breathe.'' I would hope that the DOJ would focus on systemic institutional racism because there is good policing. That is what we are trying to do in the Judiciary Committee, and that is what we need you to join us on, Mr. Attorney General, and to recognize that institutional racism does exist. Until we accept that, we will not finish our job and reach the goals and aspirations of our late iconic John Lewis. Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Ms. Jackson Lee. With that, I yield back. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Gohmert? Mr. Gohmert. Attorney General Barr, we have been hearing about these peaceful protests in major cities around the country controlled by Democratic mayors and city councils. You have had a lot of experience. Have you ever seen so many people hurt, injured, and killed at peaceful protests in your life? Attorney General Barr. I haven't seen it. No, not at a peaceful protest. Obviously, as I've said from the beginning, these peaceful protests in many places are being hijacked by a very hard core of instigators, violent instigators. They become violent and their primary direction of violence is to injure police. Police casualties far exceed anything on the civilian side. Mr. Gohmert. Weren't there over 50 police injured in Chicago just in the recent days? Now, I am hearing this allegation that this Administration is helping spread coronavirus, COVID-19. Yet these are some of the same people that just castigated the President for shutting down travel from the location where the virus was coming from, and now some seem more interested in defending the Chinese Communist Party than they are our own country. What occurred to me, hearing this allegation about this Administration helping to spread COVID, would it be a good idea then perhaps, if that is the big concern here, that maybe the Federal Government should shut down the protests during this COVID-19 spread so that we can satisfy our colleagues that you are doing more to stop it? Has that ever been a consideration? Attorney General Barr. No, I've never considered that. Mr. Gohmert. Well, it would apparently stop some of the allegations being thrown here. Now, I know you know history. Going back to 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Mao Revolution, some of these tactics we are seeing are not new, trying to get even David Horowitz, I introduced one time as a former Socialist. He said, ``No, I was a full-blown Communist.'' He has pointed out that he started looking away from the group he was in because he saw they were interested in trying to provoke the police to kill somebody so that they could really create mayhem. You are familiar with that tactic by Marxists, are you not? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Gohmert. It is a dangerous time. Well, let me ask you, I know you know that U.S. attorneys are supposed to serve at the pleasure of the President. You know Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys on the same day. Do you know what made U.S. Attorney Berman think that he was the exception who did not serve at the pleasure of the President? What caused him to think he owned that position? Attorney General Barr. I think part of it was he seems to have had the view that because he was court appointed, and there is a provision in law for court appointment of a U.S. attorney as essentially a placeholder until the Administration gets somebody, that he felt he could not be removed by the President because he was court appointed. That's not correct. Mr. Gohmert. Yes, and some judges fail to know what my constitutional law professor knew, and that is that all courts except--Federal courts except for one owe their existence and continuation and jurisdiction to the U.S. Congress. Hopefully, Mr. Berman will figure that out at some point. Now, is Bruce Ohr still working for the FBI? Attorney General Barr. He works for the Department of Justice. Mr. Gohmert. Well, we have heard so much information about his basically being the go-between between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and the Russian propaganda that were incorporated into his dossier. I know Clinesmith, Christopher Wray indicated he had been given the chance to resign, go get a better job. I am wondering how long Bruce Ohr is going to be staying where he is? It is incredible to me that he is still there. Attorney General Barr. Well, I can't talk about individual personnel matters. Mr. Gohmert. Well, thank you for your service. I am sorry for the abuse you have taken when you are just trying to do your job. Appreciate it very much. Yield back. Ms. Scanlon. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee for 5 minutes. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Barr, I am Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. So, this is a most pertinent hearing to me. First, I would like to ask you if you will work with us and allow the head of the Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband, to testify before this Committee this fall? Attorney General Barr. I'll talk to him about it. Mr. Cohen. Will you encourage him? Attorney General Barr. I'll talk to him about it. Mr. Cohen. All right. I have closely watched actions taken by the Federal Government in Lafayette Park in June and currently in Portland, Oregon. According to a DOJ document dated June 4 received by this committee, 1,500 Federal agents from 10 different agencies were deployed to confront protesters in Washington, DC, at Lafayette Park, which has long been honored and accepted as a place of protest in our Nation's capital. On the first day of June, the world watched in horror on live television as Federal agents deployed by the Administration, and with you present and telling them to ``get it done,'' used force to clear Lafayette Park so that the President, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of St. John's Church. This was anathema to the bishop of the diocese and the rector of the church. It was also an affront to the Constitution and to the American people. Given the timing and the coordinated attack against the peaceful demonstrators, it strains credulity that this was not planned for use of political purposes. Just yesterday, Major DeMarco testified to another Committee of Congress that the protesters were peaceful, and that is what the majority of people have said, and the response was excessive. When did you first learn that the President planned to walk through the park and go to St. John's Church? Attorney General Barr. First, I'd like to respond to what you-- Mr. Cohen. Will you please answer my question? My time is limited. Attorney General Barr. I learned sometime in the afternoon that the President might come out of the White House. Then later in the afternoon, I heard that he might go over to the church. Mr. Cohen. So, it was absolutely necessary the park be cleared for his walk? Attorney General Barr. No, that had nothing to do with that. The plan to move the perimeter-- Mr. Cohen. Mr. Attorney General, it was necessary that the park be cleared and it was done. You said, ``Get it done.'' I have the time. Thank you. In Portland, we have seen mothers and we have seen veterans who were peacefully protesting, not threatening the Federal courthouse, beaten and gassed. Unidentified armed Federal agents violently attacked demonstrators in a violation of the First Amendment's freedom of assembly and arrested citizens without individualized suspicion in a violation of Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and a warrant requirement. You have gone through the Fifth amendment and due process and just negated it. The 10th Amendment, which leaves general policing to the law enforcement to the States, has been forgotten. Maybe what happened was your secret police were poorly trained, just like your Bureau of Prison guards were poorly trained and allowed the most notorious inmate in our Nation's last several years, Jeffrey Epstein, to conveniently commit suicide. Sad. You misled Congress and the American people about Special Counsel Mueller's findings with your ``summary'' of his report. It was issued about a month before you released the redacted portion of the Mueller report, but you set the stage. You set the stage such that the special counsel objected to the accuracy of how it was reported by the press and what you said. Federal Judge Reggie Walton, appointed by George W. Bush, declared in a ruling that your summary was ``distorted'' and ``misleading'' and that the court could not trust you. Further, Judge Walton stated your report was ``a calculated attempt to influence public disclosure about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump.'' This Committee still does not have the unredacted Mueller report. America has still not seen the unredacted Mueller report. Your excuses for not releasing it because it had to do with ongoing cases no longer exists because those ongoing cases have been completed or commuted or finished. Other Attorney Generals work with this Judiciary Committee to see that the American public and that the Judiciary Committee had unredacted copies of that report. You have not. You have gone to court to stall it. This report needs to be given to this committee. Michael Cohen, you have treated him differently than Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. Michael Flynn, you have attempted to dismiss the charges, even after he twice pled guilty. Roger Stone, you went further. Mr. Barr, John Lewis said to us, ``If not me, who? If not now, when?'' That is why I introduced H. Res. 1032, which would require this Committee to investigate your conduct as Attorney General and determine whether you should be impeached. That is my constitutional duty. I yield back the balance of my time. Attorney General Barr. May I respond to these? Mr. Cohen. I would like to seek recognition. Ms. Scanlon. I am sorry. What did you-- Mr. Cohen. I would like to seek recognition for unanimous consent requests. Ms. Scanlon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cohen. Yes, you are recognized. Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I would like to introduce for the record a Slate article entitled ``Why Trump Chose Portland,'' which describes the racial history of the State and the Portland Police Bureau. I would also like to introduce an op-ed from Mary McCord, who writes her words were twisted to justify the Department's disingenuous position to drop charges against Michael Flynn after he had already pled guilty. I would like to introduce an op-ed from Jonathan Kravis describing the political interference in the Roger Stone case and why he resigned from the Department of Justice. I would like to introduce a statement from over 2,600 former DOJ officials calling for Attorney General Barr's resignation because of his assault on the Rule of Law and a letter from the New York City bar urging Congress to commence formal inquiries in a pattern of conduct by Attorney General Barr that threatens public confidence in the fair and impartial Administration of justice. Finally, a letter from 27 of the District of Columbia's most prominent attorneys and law professors, including four past presidents of the D.C. bar, calling for an ethics investigation into Mr. Barr's conduct. Ms. Scanlon. Without objection-- Mr. Cohen. Last, but not least, a letter from over 80 percent of the George Washington University Law School faculty, your alma mater, saying his actions have posed to continue to create a clear and present danger to the even-handed Administration of justice, to civil liberties, and the constitutional order. Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Without objection. Thank you. [The information follows:] MR. COHEN FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Madam Chair, one more unanimous consent request on this side. Ms. Scanlon. Go ahead. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This is the article that says Representative Jerry Nadler says Antifa violence in Portland is a myth. That's from Politico and a number of other journals. Put that in the record. Ms. Scanlon. Without objection. [The information follows:] MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Collins is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Attorney General Barr. Wow. I am beginning to believe, frankly, that you are probably--it just hadn't come out yet, probably will in a little bit. You are probably the cause of the common cold and and possibly even the COVID-19. I am not sure at this point. Because everything is being thrown at you, including now, undoubtedly, your alma mater doesn't like you anymore. Where have we come? The Chair said something earlier today that really made me think. He said, ``Why all the drama?'' That is the most ironic statement coming from this Committee in the last 18 months that I have ever heard of the drama that we are bringing up today. We are seeming to just contort ourselves to get to some way to show that you have a nefarious motive. I believe--like some on our side here, I believe the biggest problem you have is telling the truth. I believe that is the problem that they have with you. You will tell the truth, and you will take responsibility for your actions. I think that is why you are being attacked. I want to continue just on this ``peaceful protest'' for a second. You made a comment just a second ago talking about a courthouse that is just down the street. What if they decided, do you think that this body right here would rise up if they decided to go tonight and paint the Capitol building? Attorney General Barr. This body? I am not sure. Mr. Collins. I think this side would. I am not sure--yes, the other side, I am not so sure. It may be the peaceful protest to burn down the Capitol. Maybe we are back to 1812 again. Also, the other question I have is, and you heard it earlier today, the stormtrooper comments by the Speaker of the House. We know that that is a direct reference to the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Stormtroopers going at it. Do you believe that actually puts our law enforcement community at a whole--as the son of a State Trooper, I want to know your opinion? Don't you think it encourages the violence that we are seeing and encourages the participation against the police? Attorney General Barr. I think that's possible, and I think it's irresponsible to call these Federal law enforcement officers storm-troopers. Mr. Collins. Yes, and we are seeing that being played out over and over. Let us switch back to something else, though, that is I think more feeling here. We talk about the investigations and especially going with Flynn. Do you believe that there was actually a basis to go after General Flynn? I mean, what we have seen so far, what has been released, and especially keeping an investigation open. Peter Strzok kept it open. Do you believe there was actually a basis for the beginning of this investigation, to start with or continuing it? Attorney General Barr. Well, I would just say I asked another U.S. attorney in St. Louis, who had 10 years in the FBI and 10 years in the Department of Justice as a career prosecutor to take a look at it. He determined based on documents that had not been provided to Flynn's side and not been provided to the court that, in fact, there was no basis to investigate Flynn. Mr. Collins. Okay. Attorney General Barr. Furthermore, it was clearly established by the documents that the FBI agents who interviewed him did not believe that he thought he was lying. Mr. Collins. Well, there is another part of this as well that concerns what has been given to the courts and the interviews and that is that the facts were not disclosed to Flynn prior to the interview. That seems like a Brady violation to me. Do you believe that there is a Brady violation there in this case? Attorney General Barr. No, there wasn't a Brady violation there. I think what the counsel concluded was that the only purpose of the interview, the only purpose, was to try to catch him in saying something that they could then say was a lie. Mr. Collins. So, it was an entrapment? Attorney General Barr. Therefore, there was not a legit-- the interview was untethered to any legitimate investigation. Mr. Collins. So as the law enforcement officer in this country, it is your responsibility to provide justice for both sides, and just call it as it should be, and I think that is what you have done there. Continuing the Durham case, and I know we are not talking specifically about the Durham investigation, which we are hopeful of. To your knowledge--and we are seeing some released documents in the last week or two that have said, to your knowledge has Kevin Clinesmith or anyone else at FBI or DOJ attempted--who was previously there attempted to redeem themselves by cooperating with the investigation? It has been slow and-- Attorney General Barr. I can't get into that. Mr. Collins. Okay. I understand that. I have another issue, as we finish up, in looking at this between the rhetoric, between the investigation. I think the Durham investigation is something most of us have waited for because we can't seem to get this Committee to actually believe that the IG's report is worth having something about this committee. There is not a Democrat or Republican on this side that can make a legitimate claim why the Inspector General has not been called before this Committee to actually explain his report except politics. That is what this Committee has become all along. I have another problem, and I have talked to you--I have written to you about this, and that is down with a district attorney down in Fulton County, Georgia, actually charging, making felony murder charges on an officer. The interesting part about this is what we do, as prosecutors do, but were you aware that the district attorney failed to seek an indictment from a grand jury or even waited for a GBI investigation to finish before bringing those charges? Were you aware of that? Attorney General Barr. Yes, I was. Mr. Collins. Okay. As an attorney, and again, looking at this with the environment we have right now with police officers constantly under attack from this Committee and from others and all over the country and especially from the Speaker of the House, as an attorney and especially a prosecutor, do you think it is appropriate to charge a law enforcement officer with a crime as severe as felony murder without giving the investigation more than a mere days and without obtaining an indictment from the grand jury and, while you announce the charges, lay out a case that is full of falsehoods? Attorney General Barr. I've said that I would have preferred that he had used the grand jury and had waited until the Georgia Bureau had completed its investigation. Mr. Collins. Well, I appreciate your help in that. With that, I yield back. Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson from Georgia. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. General Barr, your opening statement reads like it was written by Alex Jones or Roger Stone. Do you stand by that statement? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Now, I am sure that we can agree on some things. We disagree on a whole lot, but I am sure we can agree on the fact that President Trump is just a prolific tweeter. Isn't that correct? Attorney General Barr. He seems to be. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. He tweeted many times about the Roger Stone sentencing, didn't he? Attorney General Barr. I don't know how many times he tweeted about it. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, many times, and you are aware of them because you said it would--it hurts you from doing your job. Isn't it true that when prosecutors in the Roger Stone case filed a memo with the court recommending a sentence of 7-9 years in prison, a few hours later, President Trump tweeted that the sentence recommendation was ``a disgrace.'' You are aware of that? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. General Barr, several hours after that, you filed a pleading with the court stating that the sentence recommendation would be changed and that you would be asking for a lighter sentence for Roger Stone. Isn't that correct? Attorney General Barr. No. What is correct is that-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I mean-- Attorney General Barr. What is correct, that on February 10th, Monday-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No, no-- Attorney General Barr. --I gave instructions as to what the-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time. Attorney General Barr. Yeah, I'm answering your question. Mr. Jordan. Well, you got to let him answer. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, you filed a sentencing recommendation hours after President Trump tweeted his dissatisfaction with the Stone recommendation, and you changed that recommendation-- Attorney General Barr. No, I--the night before-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. --several hours after the Trump-- Attorney General Barr. The night before, that is Monday night-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I know your story, but I am asking-- Attorney General Barr. Well, I'm telling my story. That's what I'm here to do. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I don't want you to tell your story. I want you to answer my question. Attorney General Barr. Well, I do. That's why I'm here. Well, I'm here to tell my story. On the night before-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, you are here to answer my question. Attorney General Barr. --the night before, on February 10th-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Sir? Attorney General Barr. On February 10th, I directed-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, sir. Reclaiming my time. I know you don't want to answer, but the facts are clear. Sentencing recommendation made in the morning, tweet in the afternoon. You changed the sentencing recommendation that afternoon-- Attorney General Barr. The tweet was not made in the afternoon. The tweet was made at, I think, 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, the tweet was made before and after, tweeted about that relentlessly, and you have agreed to that. Now, when you filed your sentencing recommendation asking for a lower sentence-- Attorney General Barr. I didn't ask for a lower sentence. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, you said that you were going to recommend a lower sentence, and you-- Attorney General Barr. No, we-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Wasn't the sentence that was recommended by the line prosecutors according to the sentencing guideline calculations? Attorney General Barr. It was within the guidelines, but it was not within Justice Department policy, in my view. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Now, General Barr, you are expecting the American people to believe that you did not do what Trump wanted you to do when you changed that sentencing recommendation and lowered it for Roger Stone? You think the American people don't understand that you were carrying out Trump's will? Attorney General Barr. I was not--I had not discussed my sentencing recommendation with anyone at the White House or anyone or anyone outside the Department. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You were doing what the exactly what the President wanted you to do, and that is what you did. Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Attorney General Barr-- Attorney General Barr. Well, let me ask you. Do you think it is fair for a 67-year-old man to be sent to prison for 7-9 years? Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, sir. It was in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. Attorney General Barr. No, it was not. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You just said that it was, and your line prosecutors will testify that it was also. Now, I am going to move on from that. Attorney General Barr. The Department-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. During your time as Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. It is not the Department-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. --for Herbert Walker Bush, you never changed a sentencing recommendation for a friend of Herbert Walker Bush, did you? Attorney General Barr. No. As I recall-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. That is all I am asking. No. Over the course of your time as Trump's Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. Nothing was never elevated to me. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Over the course of your tenure with Trump, you have changed two sentencing recommendations. Not one, but two. Correct? Attorney General Barr. Which were they? Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes, Michael Flynn. Attorney General Barr. I didn't change it. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, you have said, or you indicated that, yes, you changed it because the original Flynn sentencing recommendation was for Flynn to serve zero to 6 months. Under your authority, the Justice Department supplemented that recommendation with a pleading that stated the Department of Justice's agreement with Flynn's lawyers that probation would be a reasonable sentence and that the DOJ would not be seeking prison time for Michael Flynn. Isn't that correct? Attorney General Barr. I don't think that's what it said. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, that is what it said, sir. You go back and read it. Attorney General Barr. I think both pleadings said-- Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Sir, reclaiming my time. Prior to you becoming the-- Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Jordan. Madam Chair, you can give a speech, or you can ask questions. If you do the latter, you need to let the witness answer the questions. That is the Chair's obligation and the Chair's responsibility to allow that to happen. Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Buck is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Buck. Attorney General Barr, thank you for appearing before the Committee today. General Barr, there is a disturbing pattern we have seen throughout history with totalitarian systems of government. The leaders first seek to disarm the population, then they encourage goon squads to suppress opposing voices. Finally, once they have disarmed and silenced the opposition, these authoritarian leaders institute policies that root out and crush freedom in every form. Unfortunately, the American left has been infected with the same totalitarian desire to remove firearms and silence opposing views as part of a campaign to achieve its political ends. We have seen this scenario play out in every major Democrat-run city in America. Progressive leaders push to disarm law-abiding Americans to further their influence while watching as crime rates soar. We even saw failed presidential and Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke proudly tell Americans, ``Hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15 and your AK-47.'' Now, the American left is actively cheering as its fascist militia Antifa rages in the streets. Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that hijacks peaceful rallies, organizes armed riots, attacks peaceful protesters, burns buildings, loots stores, and spreads hate. Reports of Antifa-linked attacks began circulating in 2017. These thugs, often armed with sticks and pepper spray and other instruments, showed up to silence college Republican groups at Berkeley. The left was silent. Then in June 2019, Antifa jumped into the national conversation after journalist Andy Ngo was brutally attacked in Portland. No arrests were made. The left, again, was silent. Almost exactly 1 year ago today, Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed stating Portland has to do something to deter political violence or the city will get more of it. Of course, the city's feckless leadership has only further encouraged Antifa's violent antics. As a result, we have seen 61 straight nights of violence in Portland. Antifa's fascist totalitarian activities are now oozing into other Democrat-run cities. Last Sunday, Antifa launched a violent assault on a peaceful pro-police demonstration in Denver, Colorado. Conservative leaders in Colorado, including Randy Corporon, a Denver area lawyer and radio talk show host, organized a family-friendly event in honor of Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. The atmosphere was peaceful, and the counter- protesters were given plenty of space to advocate their message. As the afternoon wore on, a swarm of violent Antifa thugs infiltrated the peaceful Black Lives Matter counter-protesters and began assaulting pro-police Americans. These are 20- and 30-year-old thugs assaulting 50-, 60-, 70-, and even 80-year- old Americans who only wanted to show their support for law enforcement. What is worse, Denver's cowardly liberal leadership ordered police to retreat once they saw Members of Antifa entering the fray. A Denver police detective, Nick Rogers, apologized for this terrible decision. Detective Rogers summed it up best in a recent radio interview, ``I am sorry on behalf of the rank and file. That is not us. That is not who we are. It just kills me that we let good people down.'' He continued, ``I found out that a retreat order was given by the incident commander, and we had one lieutenant step up and say we aren't leaving. This lieutenant said, 'These people are going to get killed if we don't stay.' So, he kept his people there. That is the reason this thing didn't get worse.'' These are sad times in America. Free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are both being threatened by violent anarchists, and the best our Chair can do is call Antifa a myth. General Barr, this has to stop. We can't let Antifa continue terrorizing our country. Can you please tell us about the appropriate use of civil and criminal RICO statutes to address violent criminal groups like Antifa? Attorney General Barr. In the wake of the beginning of these riots, I asked our Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces around the country, to be our principal means of developing evidence and prosecuting violent extremist terrorists who are involved in these activities. One of the tools, obviously, we would use is RICO, which can be used against an organization. That doesn't mean that we currently have a RICO case pending. Mr. Buck. Okay. I thank the gentleman, and do you have anything you want to say in response to the speeches that have been given by the other side, and then you have been cut off? Attorney General Barr. Yeah, well, in Lafayette-- Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired. Attorney General Barr. Could I ask for a brief recess? Mr. Biggs. Point of order. Mr. Jordan. Madam Chair, the witness would like a break. Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Barr? Mr. Barr, 10 minutes? Attorney General Barr. Five. Ms. Scanlon. Okay. The Committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes. [Recess.] Ms. Scanlon. The Committee is in session. The Chair recognizes Mr. Deutch for 5 minutes. Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Attorney General Barr, you just told us that ``Nothing was ever elevated to me.'' You had said in an interview recently that there is a process in place, an escalation system, it is the AG's responsibility to resolve it. How was this elevated to you, the case of Roger Stone? Attorney General Barr. On Monday, February 10th, the U.S. attorney was with me, and he raised the issue with me. Mr. Deutch. So, it was elevated by Timothy Shea? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Deutch. Had it been elevated during the 2 months between the time the conviction came in under the former U.S. attorney and the time that Timothy Shea started? Attorney General Barr. I think Shea may have had conversations with people in the Deputy's-- Mr. Deutch. No, did you ever have conversations with a former U.S. attorney about this case, about the sentencing? Attorney General Barr. I don't recall any discussion about Stone. Mr. Deutch. Right. So, Timothy Shea, you said in the interview that he was new. He had just started. He was new, but he worked for you for a long time, didn't he? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Deutch. What was his job for you? Attorney General Barr. Well, when I was Attorney General 30 years ago, he worked-- Mr. Deutch. No, no, no. Now, just now? Attorney General Barr. He was on my staff. Mr. Deutch. He advised you on criminal justice policy and law enforcement, right? Attorney General Barr. Correct. Mr. Deutch. You named him acting U.S. attorney. Had you discussed the Stone case with him before you named him acting U.S. attorney? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Deutch. Did you discuss sentencing with him? Not before, the first time when he came in. It wasn't Monday, actually. Just to refresh your recollection, in a prior interview, you said he came in the week before. He came in to see some senior staff. That is what you-- Attorney General Barr. No, that's what I said. He may have had discussions with people in the Deputy's office. I was not involved in those discussions. Basically, I didn't--as far as I can recall, I had no substantive involvement in Stone until that Monday when he came in in the morning. Mr. Deutch. Well, the--I am sorry, Mr. Attorney General, the week before, when he came in to see the senior staff that he had worked with the week before, when he was working-- Attorney General Barr. No, I said I think he had raised it with people in the Deputy's office. That's senior staff, too. Mr. Deutch. Right. I understand. Attorney General Barr. I was not involved-- Mr. Deutch. He started July 31st. The first week he was there, he came to raise this issue? Attorney General Barr. I think he started February 1st. Mr. Deutch. Right. The first week he was there, he came into your office to raise the issue of sentencing. In the interview you did with ABC, you said-- Attorney General Barr. No, I don't think he came-- Mr. Deutch. That is what you told ABC News. You said that he talked to senior staff. Not you perhaps, but he talked to senior staff. Attorney General Barr. I don't know what--you know, I think I speak English. I said that before he came in to see me, I believe he had some conversations-- Mr. Deutch. Conversations with senior staff. Attorney General Barr. Right. Mr. Deutch. That is right. Before he came to see you. Attorney General Barr. Okay. Mr. Deutch. We are saying the same thing. I am just asking-- Attorney General Barr. The first it was raised with me was on Monday. Mr. Deutch. Was on Monday. Did you talk to the senior staff after they spoke with him? Attorney General Barr. I think at a 9:00 meeting, they said that he was trying to work something out on sentencing, and he was actually optimistic that something could be worked out. So, I didn't think of it as an issue until that Monday when he told me that prosecutors-- Mr. Deutch. Right. So, then he filed the sentencing memo, and the sentencing memo called for 7-9 years. It is the policy of the U.S. attorney's office to suggest a specific guideline range, which they did. Then you overruled the line prosecutors. You asked for a lower sentence and you gave some reasons. You talked about health. Health is to be considered only for an extraordinary physical impairment. Did that apply to Roger Stone, Mr. Attorney General? That is what the guideline said. Attorney General Barr. Well, actually, I reveal all the information. Mr. Deutch. I am not asking what his health was, but did that apply? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Deutch. Okay. Did-- Attorney General Barr. I'm sorry. Did what apply? Mr. Deutch. His health. Was health-- Attorney General Barr. Health is a reason to-- Mr. Deutch. I know. Is that the reason for Roger Stone, for your asking for a lower sentence? Let me go on. It says-- Attorney General Barr. I stated why-- Mr. Deutch. Let me go on. Attorney General Barr. I stated why I-- Mr. Deutch. Hold on one second. Age can be a consideration it says only if it creates conditions that are of an unusual degree and distinguish the case from typical cases. He was 67. Attorney General Barr. The judge agreed with me, Congressman. Mr. Deutch. No, that is not what I am asking. Attorney General Barr. The judge agreed with me. Mr. Deutch. I am not asking you that. Attorney General Barr. The judge agreed with me. Mr. Deutch. I am not asking whether-- Attorney General Barr. I know you're not asking it. I'm saying-- Mr. Deutch. I am not asking you that, and the issue here is whether Roger Stone was treated differently because he was friends with the President. When you asked to reduce the sentence, you said enhancements were technically applicable. Mr. Attorney General, can you think of any other cases where the defendant threatened to kill a witness, threatened a judge, lied to a judge, where the Department of Justice claimed that those were mere technicalities? Can you think of even one? Attorney General Barr. The judge agreed with our-- Mr. Deutch. Can you think of even one? I am not asking about the judge. I am asking about what you did to reduce the sentence of Roger Stone. Attorney General Barr. Yes. There are-- Mr. Deutch. Can you think--Mr. Attorney General, he threatened the life of a witness-- Attorney General Barr. The witness said he didn't feel threatened. Mr. Deutch. --and you view that as a technicality, Mr. Attorney General. Is there another time when that has happened? Attorney General Barr. Can I answer the question? Can I have just a few seconds to answer the question? Mr. Deutch. Sure. I am asking if there is another time, in all the time of the Justice Department-- Attorney General Barr. Okay. In this case, the judge agreed with our-- Mr. Deutch. I will answer my question, Mr. Attorney General, and it is unfortunate, and the appearance is that, as you said earlier, this is exactly what you want. The essence of rule of law is that we have one rule for everybody, and we don't in this case because he is a friend of the President's. I yield back. Chair Nadler. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. Ms. Roby? Ms. Roby. Mr. Attorney General, thank you so much for being here with us today. I am a member of this committee, as well as the Appropriations Committee, and I have been able to see firsthand both the funding and the operation of the Department. Additionally, before I was elected to Congress, I served on the city council in my hometown of Montgomery, Alabama, and I have witnessed the importance and the value of various Justice Department grant programs in the resources to State and local governments. For example, the Alabama Fusion Center, which is designed to combine information between Federal, State, and local government; private sector entities; and the intelligence community, has been a recipient of these Federal grants. The Alabama Fusion Center is also responsible for the Alabama Center for Missing and Exploited Children and has done a great job in work in combating child exploitation. Do you believe that Congress is adequately funding programs that provide State and local agencies with the tools that they need to be effective in preventing and pursuing crime, such as child exploitation and human trafficking, particularly over the Internet? Attorney General Barr. I think we could always use more resources for that, Congresswoman. If I could just have a moment of your time to respond to these questions here on-- Ms. Roby. Sure. Attorney General Barr. --that were being asked about the Roger Stone sentencing? The U.S. attorney came to me and said that the four-line prosecutors were threatening to resign unless they could recommend 7-9 years, but there was no comparable case to support that. It would have been a very disparate sentence. All the cases were clustered around 3-year sentence for that, and the way they had gotten to the 7-9 was by applying an enhancement. There are debates all the time within the Department of Justice about the proper calculations under the guidelines and whether a particular enhancement applies or doesn't apply, and those are usually worked out or solved. Here, they were saying that they were taking an enhancement that has traditionally been applied to mafioso and things like that, threatening a witness, and they were applying to him because he had a phone call at night where he told a witness that, ``If you want to get it on, let's get it on, and I'll take your dog.'' We felt that that technically could apply, but in this case, it really didn't reflect the underlying conduct. The overarching requirement at the Department of Justice is that we do not presume and automatically apply the guidelines. We make individual assessments of the defendant and what is really just under the case and nothing that is excessive. TT These individuals were trying to force the U.S. attorney, who was new in the office, to adopt 7-9. I made the decision, no, we are going to leave it up to the judge and that later, when that was not done that evening, I told people we had to go back and correct that the next morning. So, that's the sequence of events. At the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The judge said she would not have gone along, she didn't think, with the first recommendation because the enhancement artificially inflated the exposure of the defendant. She came out exactly where I had come out. So, at the end of the day, the question is fairness to the individual. Even though I was going to get a lot of criticism for doing that, I think at the end of the day, my obligation is to be fair to the individual. Thank you for permitting me to respond. Ms. Roby. I am happy to have yielded you time to respond. That being said, Mr. Attorney General, as I am a departing Member of Congress and have just a few short moments left, I just want to express to you and the Department how important this issue that I originally asked you about is to me, both as a Member of Congress representing my constituents in Alabama, but also as a mother of two beautiful children. I am increasingly alarmed about the way that children are just one click away from being on a website, a forum, or a chat room or a social media site where bad actors may be lurking. Whereas I only have a few short seconds left, I would just ask you in the time that I have left in Congress that we could continue to work together to combat child exploitation and human trafficking. I appreciate all the work that you are doing on this. Attorney General Barr. Absolutely, Congresswoman. As you know, one of the most difficult issues coming up is encryption. Because as this material gets encrypted in the chat rooms and the areas where they groom these young children, once it becomes encrypted, it will be very hard for us to police it. Ms. Roby. Right. Thank you so much. I yield back. Thank you. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Bass? Ms. Bass. Attorney General Barr, when it comes to police engagement, last August, when speaking to the National Fraternal Order of Police, you shared your views on police engagement with the public. You stated, and I quote, ``underscore the need to comply first and, if warranted, complain later. This will make everyone safe--the police, suspects, and the community at large--and those who resist must be prosecuted. I repeat, zero tolerance for resisting police. This will save lives.'' Do you stand by that statement? Attorney General Barr. Yes, I think it's very important that-- Ms. Bass. A zero-tolerance attitude is costing lives, not saving them, especially in communities of color. Attorney General Barr. Well, I'm not saying-- Ms. Bass. I reclaim my time. A movement and protests have arisen in response to police brutality. Here are a few examples of who bears the cost of zero tolerance. Elijah McClain was walking home from a convenience store when he was approached by police. He had not committed a crime. Police held him in a chokehold for 15 minutes. They injected him with ketamine, not under a doctor's supervision, but at the direction of non-medically trained and unlicensed police officers. Are you familiar with that case? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Bass. Do you know how frequently ketamine is used by law enforcement to subdue civilians, especially people of color? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Bass. Did you know if police departments have been documented as directing paramedics and EMTs to inject ketamine during arrests? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Bass. Have you--well, then I guess you haven't evaluated the use of force tactics since becoming AG and especially this particular tactic of subduing suspects with ketamine? Attorney General Barr. Not with respect to ketamine, no. Ms. Bass. Will you commit to directing the Department to evaluate the protocols around the use of ketamine, chokeholds, and other methods used by Federal law enforcement officials when making arrests or detaining subjects? Attorney General Barr. Absolutely. Under the President's executive order, we are reviewing te use of force and working with police departments. Ms. Bass. Thank you. Especially the ketamine. That is pretty outrageous. Attorney General Barr. I'll look into it. Ms. Bass. George Floyd was killed by a police officer via a chokehold. For 8 minutes and 46 seconds, a police officer knelt on his neck as he begged for his life. He was suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill. That is how zero tolerance can amount to a death sentence for Black men when used in communities of color, with George Floyd screaming, as we all know, he couldn't breathe. Now, consider James Holmes, who murdered 12 people and injured 70 others in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, the same town as Elijah McClain, where he was arrested. James wore body armor, had a knife, semi-automatic weapons, and an AR-15. Yet he was calmly arrested by the same police department as Elijah McClain without a chokehold or an injection of ketamine. Dylann Roof used a gun to murder 9 people and injured another at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. When he was arrested, no chokeholds, no injections. He was treated so well that officers brought Dylann Roof Burger King after arresting him. Are you familiar with that case? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Ms. Bass. I raised those two examples to follow up on what my colleague from Texas highlighted earlier, that the Department is not doing enough to address issues of racism, bias, and brutality in law enforcement when someone who commits mass murder is calmly arrested and served Burger King while a young man walking down the street is placed in a chokehold and injected with ketamine, then dies. You said that under the executive order, the Administration is looking at chokeholds. What have you determined so far? Attorney General Barr. Well, we're setting up a system of certification of police departments. Part of what our charter is, is to come up with criteria that will be used for certification, including limitations on use of force, specifically including chokeholds. Ms. Bass. So, in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, part of it called for a national registry of law enforcement officers as a resource for police chiefs to determine who are best candidates for jobs. As you may or may not be aware, Tamir Rice might be alive today if the police chief who hired him had known that the police officer had been fired from another department. What is your view of a national registry of law enforcement officers? Attorney General Barr. The second aspect of the President's executive order is to set up a database like that so that all determinations of excessive force around the country go into that database. If police departments aren't reporting that information, they wouldn't be certified. So, we do believe in one national point where you can go in and get determinations of excessive force on law enforcement candidates for jobs. Ms. Bass. Good. Thank you. I do want to comment on part of your opening statement, when you were saying that after the Jim Crow period that our justice system was equal. I don't believe that-- Attorney General Barr. I said the law. I said the laws were made equal. Ms. Bass. The laws were made equal. They are certainly not applied equally. We do have systemic problems in our law enforcement system, our criminal justice system on every level. The fact of the matter is 2.3 million people in the United States are incarcerated. We incarcerate 24 percent of the world's prisoners. Thirty-four percent are black, while African Americans are just 13 percent of the U.S. population. So, justice is still not equal. Nor are our laws. I think when we look at how many people are incarcerated or how many people are killed, it is not the numbers. It is the percentage to the percentage of that group in the U.S. population. I yield back my time. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Gaetz? Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, you have described the prosecution of Roger Stone as righteous. That is clearly something that the President and I disagree with you on. I would suggest that perhaps the prosecution of Andrew McCabe, who lied four times, thrice under the penalty of perjury, would be more righteous. I would suggest to you that uncovering the criminal conspiracy that existed where people in our own Government were trying to convince intelligence agents and operatives around the world to destabilize our elections and to discredit our President would perhaps be more righteous. As we sit here today, I don't think that Mr. Stone or Mr. McCabe or any of those other folks are killing anyone or burning down our buildings, and so I would like to focus our effort on the most acute need I believe our country has. You have recently said that you believe Antifa to be a terrorist organization. What is your basis for that belief? Attorney General Barr. I'm not sure I said terrorist organization. I said we're investigating it as domestic terrorism. Antifa, there are a number of violent extreme groups in the United States, and they're across the spectrum. Antifa is heavily represented in the recent riots. That's not to say they're the only group involved. They have been identified as involved in a number of the violent mob actions that have taken place around the country. Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Attorney General, I saw Chair of the Judiciary Committee recently say that Antifa is a myth, that their involvement in this violence isn't something that is real. What is your reaction to Chair? Attorney General Barr. I don't think it's a myth. Antifa is a--can be best thought of, I think, as an umbrella term for what is essentially a movement comprised of loosely organized groups around the country. Some of these--in some areas of the country, there are a number of groups, and there are sort of centers of activity. The groups, as I say, are loosely organized, but they are definitely organized. As since they have an anarchic temperament, they don't get along very well with each other. So, I'm not suggesting it's a national organization that moves nationally. They tend to get organized for an event, and there's a lot of organization right before an event occurs. We see a lot of the organization during the mob violence. Mr. Gaetz. That is a really important distinction when determining how to apply particularly our RICO laws to an organization like this. If Antifa is merely something that inspires people to go out and commit violence, that strikes me as legally distinct from Antifa being an organizing influence to assist people in committing crimes. One question I get from my constituents as they watch the death and violence and disruption and chaos in Seattle and in Portland and in other places is whether or not there is a risk that that could metastasize to other areas of the country. Have you given consideration to the risk that might befall other American communities if the Department of Justice were not to take action to protect and preserve Federal property in places like Portland? Attorney General Barr. Yes, absolutely. We are concerned about this problem metastasizing around the country. So, we feel that we have to in a place like Portland where, even where we don't have the support of the State--the local government, we have to take a stand and defend this Federal property. We can't get to a level where we're going to accept these kinds of violent attacks on Federal courts. Mr. Gaetz. If you did what my Democrat colleagues were asking, if you merely abandoned that Federal property, allowed it to be overrun, allowed the people inside to be harmed, is it your view then that Antifa and other violent people engaged in these acts would simply stop, would simply accept that as their sole victory? Or is it your expert opinion, having dealt with a number of law enforcement and criminal cases in your legal career, that they wouldn't stop, that they would go to the next town, to the next community and potentially inspire more violence? Attorney General Barr. There's no doubt in my mind that it would spread. Mr. Gaetz. What comfort can you give Americans in my district and around the country that you will stop this? That you will stop the burning and destruction of Federal property and that will give confidence to regular Americans that they can go out on the streets without the risk of this terrorism? Attorney General Barr. Well, as you can see in Portland, we have a relatively small number of Federal officers who have been withstanding this for almost 2 months. It's a great strain, but we cannot just stand aside and allow the Federal court to be destroyed. Mr. Gaetz. Thank you for your service and for your great work. I yield back. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Richmond? Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General Barr, you started your testimony with eloquent words about the life and legacy of John Lewis fighting systematic racism, voter intimidation, and civil rights. The one thing that you have in common with your two predecessors-- both Attorney General Sessions and Attorney General Whitaker-- is that when you all came here and brought your top staff, you brought no Black people. That, sir, is systematic racism. That is exactly what John Lewis spent his life fighting. So, I would just suggest that actions speak louder than words, and you really should keep the name of the Honorable John Lewis out of the Department of Justice's mouth. Let me also say you mentioned ``bogus Russiagate.'' In your opinion, as the Attorney General of the United States of America, did Russia interfere or attempt to interfere in the 2016 election? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Richmond. In your position as the Attorney General of the United States, is Russia attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential election? Attorney General Barr. I think we have to assume that they are. Mr. Richmond. Thank you, sir. Now, let us talk about the integrity of the election, which is also something Congressman Lewis fought for. Jared Kushner implied that the President could move the election date. Can a sitting U.S. President move an election date? Attorney General Barr. Actually, I haven't looked into that question under the Constitution. Mr. Richmond. Well, 2 U.S.C. 7 says Federal election day is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. So, if you take that as correct statute, is there any executive action by a President-- Attorney General Barr. I've never been asked the question before. I've never looked into it. Mr. Richmond. As Attorney General of the United States, do you believe that this 2020 presidential election will be rigged? Attorney General Barr. I have no reason to think it will be. Mr. Richmond. President Trump tweeted that the election will be rigged, but he also tweeted that when he was losing to Hillary Clinton, and he tweeted that the day after it was Fox showed that he was losing to Trump. I don't want to be too political. Do you believe, as the Attorney General of the United States, that mail-in voting will lead to massive voter fraud? Attorney General Barr. I think there's a high risk that it will. Mr. Richmond. Do you ever vote by mail-in ballot? Attorney General Barr. Apparently, I did once at least. Mr. Richmond. You believe that other people voting by mail could lead to massive fraud? Attorney General Barr. No. What I've talked about, made very clear, is that I'm not talking about accommodations to people who have to be out of the State or have some particular need not to--inability to go and vote. What I'm talking about is the wholesale conversion of election to mail-in voting. Mr. Richmond. You do understand that African Americans disproportionately do not survive COVID-19, coronavirus? You are aware of that? Attorney General Barr. I didn't hear the question. Mr. Richmond. You are aware that African Americans, Black people disproportionately die from COVID-19, coronavirus. Correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes, I think that's right. Mr. Richmond. Not that it would be the first time that African Americans risked their lives to vote in this country to preserve its democracy, but the suggestion is that them having the ability to vote by mail would somehow lead to massive voter fraud. I won't stick to that. Attorney General Barr. No, I didn't say that. I just State what is a reality, which is that if you have wholesale mail-in voting, it substantially increases the risk of fraud. Mr. Richmond. It doesn't make it likely? Attorney General Barr. That's all I said. Mr. Richmond. Now, I also saw on TV that the President said he's not sure that he'll accept the election results. Can a President just protest because he lost an election? Attorney General Barr. Protest in what sense? Mr. Richmond. Well, can he contest an election just because he simply loses? Attorney General Barr. Well, Bush v. Gore was-- Mr. Richmond. Well, I think that that was over a slim voter margin. I'm talking about if it is very clear that the President has lost an election, does he have a remedy to contest the election? Attorney General Barr. Not that I'm aware of. Mr. Richmond. Let me go back to what Representative Bass mentioned. You mentioned a number that there were 8 African Americans killed by the police and 11 White people killed by the police. Attorney General Barr. So far this year. Mr. Richmond. If you use those numbers, that's 85 percent of that population is white, 15 percent of that population is black. If you actually look at the deaths, according to the numbers you just gave, 42 percent of the deaths are African American, and 58 percent are white. That is a glaring disparity in terms of population, and I just give you those numbers because-- Attorney General Barr. Well, not necessarily. You have to adjust it by the race of the criminal or perpetrator. Mr. Richmond. No. I just did that for you. I'm using your numbers, and according to your numbers, African Americans are four or five times more likely than their percentage of the population to be killed by police than their White counterparts. Attorney General Barr. Well, the actual-- Mr. Richmond. I just wanted to give you that based on your numbers. Attorney General Barr. Actually, the studies I've seen have suggested two things. One, that in fact, police are less likely to shoot at a Black suspect, a little bit more likely to shoot at white. However, that police are more inclined to use nonlethal force in a contact with an African-American suspect. So, those are the terms of the statistics, that's what it looks like to me. Mr. Richmond. Any data that you have that shows that African Americans are less likely to die at the hands of police or be shot or shot at, to me, is an incorrect analysis. I am interested in seeing it. So, if you have it, please see it. I won't call it any names. If that data exists, I would be more than happy to see it. Since you are sending me that data, can you send me the data of African Americans within the Department of Justice, how many you have in leadership ranks, all the way down. Thank you, and I yield back. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. I would remind Mr. Jordan, Mr. Biggs, and Mr. Johnson to stop violating the rules of the committee, to stop violating the safety of the Members of the committee, to stop holding themselves out as not caring by refusing to wear their masks. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is it permissible to drink a sip of coffee? Chair Nadler. It is not permissible. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We can't drink coffee in the Committee now? Mr. Jordan. I am getting ready to ask-- Chair Nadler. Mr. Gaetz is recognized. Mr. Jordan. No, no, no, he went. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. He went, and that is why I took off my mask, Mr. Chair. Mr. Jordan. I am going to go. Chair Nadler. Mr. Jordan is recognized. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Attorney General, let us clear up a few things. Judge Berman Jackson agreed with your Stone sentencing recommendation. Is that right? Attorney General Barr. That's right. Mr. Jordan. Yes, and she said, ``I am concerned 7-9 years would be greater than necessary. I agree with the defense and with the Government's second memorandum.'' So, it couldn't be more clear they agreed with you? Attorney General Barr. That's right. Mr. Jordan. Lafayette Square. Would St. John's Church be standing today if you had not taken action? Attorney General Barr. Well, I think that was on Sunday night, and I think law enforcement did use tear gas, and my understanding is that night to clear the way so that the fire trucks could get in to save St. John's Church. Mr. Jordan. The church-- Attorney General Barr. That was on Sunday night, though. Mr. Jordan. I understand. I understand the time frame. Would it be standing today if there had not been action taken by federal law enforcement and local law enforcement? Attorney General Barr. Right. Mr. Jordan. Thirty-eight people unmasked Michael Flynn's name 49 times in a two-month time frame. Seven people at the Treasury Department unmasked Michael Flynn's name. Is this an issue that Mr. Durham is looking into? Attorney General Barr. I have asked another U.S. attorney to look into the issue of unmasking because of the high number of unmaskings, and some that do not readily appear to have been in the line of normal business. Mr. Jordan. Wait a minute. I want to be clear. So, there is another investigation on that issue specifically going on at the Justice Department right now? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Jordan. Wow. That is great. So, Mr. Durham is looking at how the whole Trump-Russia thing started. You have another U.S. attorney. Can you give us that U.S. attorney's name? Is that something you are comfortable doing? Attorney General Barr. John Bash of Texas. Mr. Jordan. John Bash of Texas is looking specifically at the fact? Attorney General Barr. At unmasking. Mr. Jordan. Thirty-eight people 49 times unmasked Michael Flynn's name and probably other unmaskings that took place in the final days of the Obama-Biden Administration. Is that accurate? Attorney General Barr. Actually, a much longer period of time. Mr. Jordan. Even before that? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Barr. I appreciate that and that is information that the Committee did not know. Are peaceful protests violent, Mr. Attorney General? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Jordan. Do peaceful protests destroy businesses? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Jordan. Do peaceful protests injure officers? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Jordan. Do peaceful protests attack civilians? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Jordan. Do peaceful protests burn down buildings? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Jordan. I was--the video we played it is hard to watch. It is really hard to watch to see that happening in our great country. There was one--the start of it was almost laughable where you have the reporter saying, as a building is burning behind him, it is not, generally speaking, an unruly protest. It is, mostly, just a protest. I mean, it is almost laughable when you have the reporter saying--I guess he is saying it is not a fire, it is just a burning building. I guess he is saying it is a peaceful burning building. A few weeks ago--well, let me ask you this. I want to go right to this. Is defunding the police a rational policy? Attorney General Barr. No. I think, if anything, I'm more concerned that the police be adequately funded today and get more resources. A lot of the things we need to do to address some of the concerns people have about what they saw in Minneapolis are going to take some resources, some of the training that we have to do. One of the difficulties in our country--it's not a difficulty, it's a fact--we have 18,000 law enforcement agencies. Most of them are very, very small, and so we have to find a way of training--making sure the training is pushed out. Mr. Jordan. Is it dangerous? Dangerous to defund the police? Attorney General Barr. Extremely dangerous. Mr. Jordan. Extremely dangerous. Some of the ordinances you are seeing cities pass are also dangerous. Are you familiar with the letter that Chief of Police of Seattle Carmen Best sent to business owners and residents in that city? Attorney General Barr. Yes, I am saying that she cannot protect--she can't do her job. Her police force cannot do the job because of-- Mr. Jordan. It is exactly what she said. Gives officers-- the policy they are trying to pass--thank goodness a court stopped it. The policy they are trying to pass gives officers no ability, and she emphasized no. Not us, not you, Mr. Attorney, and not me. Gives officers no ability to safely intercede to preserve property in the midst of large violent crowds. Attorney General Barr. Mm-hmm. Mr. Jordan. She also said in that letter--and, again, she is taking the leadership and responsibility to tell the business owners and the citizens that she is supposed to serve. She also tells them in that letter, ``I have done my due diligence on informing the council numerous times.'' So, she is saying, I tried to tell them. These people won't listen to me. Then, finally, she says this, and this is the scary part. This is why it is so dangerous. She says this in her letter. ``Seattle police will have an adjusted deployment.'' That is a nice way of saying, you are on your own. We can't help you. That is how scary this defund the police--and here is the kicker. Here is the kicker. These same cities sent you a letter last week, the same week Chief of Police Best does this to the residents and citizens of her city. Her mayor sends you a letter blaming you, blaming the Federal Government, for the violence that is happening in these cities. That is how ridiculous the left's position has become. I appreciate the work you are doing, Mr. Attorney General. I am over time. I yield back. Attorney General Barr. Thank you. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields. Mr. Jeffries? Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Barr, the job of the attorney general is to defend the best interests of the people and serve as the people's lawyer. During your time as attorney general, you have consistently undermined democracy, undermined the Constitution, undermined the health, safety, and wellbeing of the American people, all to personally benefit Donald Trump. Now, you just testified that there is no mechanism for a President to contest an election that has, clearly, been won by the opponent. Mr. Attorney General, what will you do if Donald Trump loses the election on November 3rd but refuses to leave office on January 20th? Attorney General Barr. If the results are clear, I would leave office. Mr. Jeffries. Do you believe that there is any basis or legitimacy to Donald Trump's recent claim that he can't provide an answer as to whether he would leave office? Attorney General Barr. I really am not familiar with these comments or the context in which they occurred. So, I'm not going to give commentary on them. Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Thank you. He just stated that publicly about a week ago to Fox News. Mr. Barr, during a radio interview this spring with Hugh Hewitt, you praised President Trump's coronavirus response as superb, correct? Attorney General Barr. Who did? Mr. Jeffries. You did. Attorney General Barr. Okay. Mr. Jeffries. Over 150,000 Americans have died. More than 4 million Americans have been infected. More than 5 million Americans have lost their health care. Over 100,000 small businesses have permanently closed. More than 50 million Americans are out of work. This is not the outcome of superb leadership. What we have gotten from Donald Trump is exactly the opposite. Let us explore. Attorney General Barr. Well, I disagree with it. Mr. Jeffries. That was not a question. That was a statement. Let us explore. In February, President Trump falsely claimed that the number of coronavirus cases will go from 15 to zero in a few days. Was that superb, yes, or no? Attorney General Barr. I would have to see the context in which it was said. Mr. Jeffries. Here is the context. The number of cases didn't go down to zero. It is over 4 million. Let us go to March. In that month, President Trump said, ``I take no responsibility at all for the failure in testing.'' Was that superb, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. It was accurate. The problem with the testing system was a function of President Obama's mishandling of the CDC and his efforts to centralize everything in the CDC when it didn't have the tests. Mr. Jeffries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barr. That is inaccurate. That is a myth. Attorney General Barr. It wasn't until this Administration-- Mr. Jeffries. That is a lie. Reclaiming my time. In April, President Trump irresponsibly suggested that the American people inject themselves with bleach. Was that superb, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. That's not what I heard. Mr. Jeffries. That is exactly what he said. That is what the American people heard, and you know it and you can't defend it. Let us move on to May. In that month, on National Nurses Day, President Trump falsely called PPE shortages fake news while nurses and other health care professionals resorted to wearing trash bags and ski goggles to protect themselves. Fake news. Was that superb, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. I think the Administration did a good job of mustering PPE and the national supply of PPE was run down during the Obama Administration and never replaced. Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Barr. The answer is no, it was not superb. By June, President Trump irresponsibly continued to refuse to wear a mask, despite the public health guidance from his own experts. Was that superb, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. Which guidance? The earlier guidance that the masks wouldn't work? Mr. Jeffries. You know exactly the guidance that we are talking about. The CDC and Dr. Fauci in April recommended that the American people wear a mask, but Donald Trump has become the poster boy for the anti-mask movement. Attorney General Barr. Donald Trump is probably tested more than any other human being on the face of the Earth. Mr. Jeffries. Yeah. Mr. Barr, the answer is the refusal to wear a mask is not superb. Last question. In July, President Trump falsely claimed that 99 percent of COVID-19 cases are, quote, ``totally harmless.'' Was that superb, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. Essentially, what he was saying is that the fatality rate, relatively, is very low. Very low. Mr. Jeffries. The answer is 150,000 Americans are dead. It has been a failure of epic proportions. In fact, Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic has been the worst failure of any President in American history, and the American people have paid the price. I yield back. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Biggs. Well, I guess I do if I think it is my turn to speak and ask questions. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? Then I seek recognition, sir. Chair Nadler. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Biggs. Bless your heart. Thank you. Attorney General Barr, Chair Nadler opened up his statement by saying you can no longer hide behind a legal fiction. That caused me some consternation. I have no idea what he is talking about. Do you have any idea what he is talking about? Attorney General Barr. I don't recall that phrase and what context. Mr. Biggs. Well, who knows what context? I mean, he was just kind of rattling on there. He was attacking you and your performance on virtually everything he could and said you can no longer hide behind a legal fiction, and I didn't see any connection with anything else he had been saying. So, I wondered if you had seen anything. Apparently, you didn't see anything either. The next person to ask questions was the gentlelady from California who consistently referred to civilian federal agents as federal troops and intimating, if you will, that Portland was peaceable until federal civilian agents arrived on the scene. Essentially, it is kind of analogous to blaming a fire department for showing up to put out a fire and then being blamed for starting the fire. Attorney General Barr, let us just have it on the record. Was there violence and attempts to burn down, vandalize the building, and attack civilian employees of the Federal Government prior to any other federal agents or reinforcements being sent in of federal agents? Attorney General Barr. Yeah. My recollection is our main effort to reinforce was around the 4th of July period and it had been going on for quite a while before that. Mr. Biggs. Let us talk about Lafayette Square for a second. Leading up to June 1st, you had violent mobs disobeying the 11:00 p.m. curfew. They set fire to parked cars, demolished coffee shops and banks, burned American flags and even intentionally set fire to St. John's Episcopal Church near Lafayette Square. Secret Service and Park Police appropriate use of safe restorative force actually cleared that up. In total, however, 51 U.S. Park Police officers were injured during the weekend leading up to the perimeter expansion. So you want to expand on the actions regarding Lafayette Park? Attorney General Barr. Right. So, for the 29th, 30th, and 31st, there was unprecedented rioting right around the White House. Very violent. During that time, as you say, about 50 Park Police and a comparable number, as my recollection, of Secret Service. So, we had about--I think around 90 officers injured. I'm talking about things like concussions, one was operated on, and so forth. It was so bad that as it's been reported the Secret Service recommended the President go down to the shelter. We had a breach of the Treasury Department. The historical building on Lafayette Park was burned down, the lodge. St. John's was set on fire. Bricks were thrown at the police repeatedly. They took crowbars and pried up the pavers on Lafayette Park and threw those at the police. Balloons of caustic liquid were thrown on the police. It was clear when I arrived at the White House on Monday there was total consensus that we couldn't allow that to happen so close to the White House, that kind of rioting and, therefore, we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward I Street. There was already a plan in being at that point that the Park Police and the Secret Service had worked out the night before, which was to put the perimeter further away and then give them time to put a nonscalable fence across the northern part of the park. During Monday, the factors that led to the timing of it were that that movement was going to be made as soon as there were enough units in place to actually perform it, and units were very slow in getting into place throughout the day, much to my frustration because I wanted it moved before there was a big buildup of demonstrators. Also, the fencing had to be delivered, and when those things were accomplished, the tactical commander in charge of the Park Police proceeded with the movement of pushing the perimeter. So, this was something conceived of long before and didn't turn on the nature of the crowd, although I would say the crowd was very unruly, and while the tactical considerations were made by the Park Police, they tried to respond to the situation. To say that this had to do with a photo op is--and I don't mean to analogize this to a military operation but it's akin to saying that we invaded the Philippines in World War II so Douglas MacArthur could walk through the surf on the beach. One follows the other. We did not invade the Philippines so that Douglas MacArthur could walk to the beach. Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Yield. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Swalwell? Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Barr, have you ever intervened other than to help the President's friend get a reduced prison sentence for any other case where a prosecutor had filed a sentencing recommendation with a court? Attorney General Barr. A sentencing recommendation? Mr. Swalwell. Yeah. Have you ever intervened, other than that case of the President's friend? Attorney General Barr. Not that I recall. If you're talking-- Mr. Swalwell. Does that seem like something you would recall where you would-- Attorney General Barr. Well, I'm saying I can't really remember my first--if you'll let me finish the question. I can't remember. 30 years ago, I was attorney general-- Mr. Swalwell. As attorney general now. Attorney General Barr. No, I didn't, but that's because issues come up to the attorney general within a dispute and I have never heard of a dispute in the department-- Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Barr-- Attorney General Barr. --where line prosecutors threatened to quit because-- Mr. Swalwell. Well, it is a pretty big deal and they-- Attorney General Barr. --because of a discussion over sentencing akin to this. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Barr, Americans from both parties are concerned that in Donald Trump's America there is two systems of justice, one for Mr. Trump and his cronies and another for the rest of us. That can only happen if you enable it. At your confirmation hearing, you were asked do you believe a President could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate him. You said that would be a crime. Attorney General Barr. Not to what? Mr. Swalwell. You were asked could a President issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate him, and you responded, no, that would be a crime. Is that right? Attorney General Barr. Yes, I said that. Mr. Swalwell. You said a crime. You didn't say it would be wrong. You didn't say it would be unlawful. You said it would be a crime, and when you said that, that a President swapping a pardon to silence a witness would be a crime, you were promising the American people that if you saw that you would do something about it. Is that right? Attorney General Barr. That's right. Mr. Swalwell. Now, Mr. Barr, are you investigating Donald Trump for commuting the prison sentence of his long-time friend and political advisor Roger Stone? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Swalwell. Why not? Attorney General Barr. Why should I? Mr. Swalwell. Well, let us talk about that. Mr. Stone was convicted by a jury on seven counts of lying in the Russia investigation. He bragged that he lied to save Trump's butt. Why would he lie? Your prosecutors, Mr. Barr, told the jury that Stone lied because the truth looked bad for Donald Trump. What truth is that? Well, Donald Trump denied in written answers to the Russia investigators that he talked to Roger Stone during the time Roger Stone was in contact with agents of a Russian influence operation. There is evidence that Trump and Stone, indeed, did talk during that time. You would agree that it is a federal crime to lie under oath. Is that right? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Swalwell. It is a crime for you, it is a crime for me, and it is certainly a crime for the President of the United States. Is that right? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Swalwell. So, if Donald Trump lied to the Mueller investigators, which you agree would be a crime, then Roger Stone was in a position to expose Donald Trump's lies. Are you familiar with a December 3, 2018 tweet where Donald Trump said Roger Stone had shown guts by not testifying against him? Attorney General Barr. No, I'm not familiar with that. Mr. Swalwell. You don't read the President's tweets? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Swalwell. Well, there is a lot of evidence in the President's tweets, Mr. Attorney General. I think you should start reading them, because he said Mr. Stone showed guts. On July 10 of this year, Roger Stone declared to a reporter, ``I had 29 or 30 conversations with Trump during the campaign period. Trump knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn't. The prosecutors wanted me to play Judas. I refused.'' Are you familiar with that Stone statement? Attorney General Barr. Actually, I'm not. Mr. Swalwell. So how can you sit here and tell us, why should I investigate the President of the United States if you are not even aware of the facts concerning the President using the pardon or commutation power to swap the silence of a witness? Attorney General Barr. Because we require, you know, a reliable predicate before we open a criminal investigation. Mr. Swalwell. I just gave to you, sir-- Attorney General Barr. Well, I don't consider it. I consider it a very Rube Goldberg theory that you have. Mr. Swalwell. Well, it sounds like you are hearing this for the first time today and what concerns me, Mr. Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. By the way, if I applied your standard there'd be a lot more people under investigation. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Attorney General, the very same day that Roger Stone said that, Donald Trump, to no surprise, commuted the-- Attorney General Barr. That's one of the two standards of justice were really during the tail end of the Obama Administration. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Attorney General, let us turn to the Michael Cohen case. Are you aware, sir, that Michael Cohen, after being released from prison was asked to not engage with the media including to write a book? Were aware that that was going to be asked of him? Attorney General Barr. Was I aware? Mr. Swalwell. Yes. Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Swalwell. Do you know if anyone else in your department was aware? Attorney General Barr. Maybe I should tell you what happened. Mr. Swalwell. Why don't you tell us what happened? Attorney General Barr. Okay. He was furloughed from the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Swalwell. No. Why don't you tell us why he was asked to sign an agreement not to-- Attorney General Barr. I will tell you. Because something that people don't seem to understand is that his home confinement was not being supervised by the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Swalwell. Now, the Bureau of Prisons-- Attorney General Barr. It was being supervised by the Probation Office, which is part of the U.S. court system. Mr. Swalwell. Are you aware-- Attorney General Barr. It was the U.S. court system that had the requirements about not writing. Mr. Swalwell. Yes, the U.S. court system called your actions retaliatory. Do you agree with that? Attorney General Barr. No. So, all I know is what has been said in court before the judge and in the record-- Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Barr-- Attorney General Barr. --which is that the individual was then called by the U.S. court system, saying that this guy Cohen is uncooperative. He's not agreeing to the conditions, and at that point the Bureau of Prisons person made the decision that he was no longer eligible for home confinement. Mr. Swalwell. Conditions that a federal judge said no other inmate had ever been asked of, in his experience. Mr. Barr, you told ABC News that the President's tweets sometimes make your job impossible. Sir, your job is only impossible if you enable the President's corrupt schemes. I yield back. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. McClintock? Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, the Constitution says the President shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment. Do you note any other limitations in the Constitution of the President's power to pardon? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. McClintock. Has the President exceeded that power? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. McClintock. My colleague from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, implied that in challenging the sentencing recommendation of Roger Stone you were doing the bidding of the President. He didn't want to hear your response. I would. Attorney General Barr. Well, Roger Stone--I never discussed our sentencing recommendation with anyone outside the Department of Justice. That was a very condensed period of time. I first heard--I made the decision that we shouldn't take a position as to the precise sentence but should leave it up to the judge and we should not affirmatively advocate for seven to nine years and I made that on Monday, the 10th, and that that night we filed--the department filed, and it didn't reflect what I had decided. So, that night I told people we had to fix it first thing in the morning. So, we did. As soon as I got in, we went forward with a plan to file. At that point, I learned about the President's tweet because I don't monitor the President's tweets, and I hesitated because I knew that I would be attacked for doing it. People would make the argue that I did it because of the tweet. I felt, at the end of the day, I really had to go forward with our filing because it was the right thing to do and I'm glad the judge agreed with it. Mr. McClintock. We are learning more and more about the targeting and prosecution and extortion of Michael Flynn by partisan officials at the FBI. No one has been held accountable for this grotesque abuse of power. Knowing that agents with a political agenda can take anything that someone says, edit it, misrepresent it, prosecute it, and then extort confessions by threatening family Members, and to do so with impunity. Why would anyone in his right mind ever want to talk to an FBI agent again? Attorney General Barr. Well, I haven't reached judgments and I'm not suggesting that all those facts you set forth are true, and we have not at this point challenged the actions of-- I defended the actions of the prosecutors in this case in court. The order of business right now is, knowing what we know now, we don't think any of the U.S. attorneys in the department would have prosecuted this case, partly because of the behavior of the FBI but also because the evidence is not there to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Part of what I'm trying to establish is that we will use the same standards for everybody before we indict anybody and this goes for both sides. We won't prosecute anybody unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime, and not some kind of esoteric made-up crime but a meat-and-potatoes crime. Mr. McClintock. For more than three years the most powerful agencies in our government took information that was fabricated by agents of a political campaign that they knew was fraudulent, used it as justification to launch an investigation alleging treason against a presidential candidate. Then leaked the existence of that investigation in a manner that was, clearly, calculated to affect the outcome of the election, and then failing that used it in a, largely, successful attempt to obstruct the duly elected president. Are you going to be able to right this wrong before it becomes a precedent for future election interference by corrupt officials in our justice and intelligence agencies? Attorney General Barr. I really can't predict that. I As you know, John Durham is looking at all these matters. COVID did delay that action for a while. He's working very diligently and justice is not something you order up on a schedule like you're ordering a pizza. Mr. McClintock. Well, there are many of us who are concerned that if you are succeeded by someone like Keith Ellison as attorney general that this will become an institutionalized practice and the investigation of Mr. Durham will simply go away. Attorney General Barr. I understand your concern. Mr. McClintock. One more thing. A term we keep hearing from the left is, oh, these are mostly peaceful protests. Mostly peaceful. It seems to me that you either are or you are not. Calling what is happening in our cities mostly peaceful protests is a lot like calling Scott Peterson a mostly faithful husband or Al Capone a mostly law-abiding businessman. There is a constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Where does that right stop? Attorney General Barr. When it becomes violence and criminal activity. That is the challenge here. You have a lot of people who are out protesting and demonstrating and that's a important First amendment activity that we believe strongly in and try to protect. The particular violent opportunists that are involved here get into those crowds and then start engaging in very violent activity and hijack it, and a lot of protestors have been telling law enforcement and providing information to us about these people who are not with them. They're not demonstrators but they're coming in, and a lot of the demonstrators leave when that happens because they see what's happening themselves. Mr. McClintock. Would you call that violence a myth? Attorney General Barr. No. Chair Nadler. The gentleman's is expired. Mr. Lieu? Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Barr, for being here today. I would like to ask you some questions about the legal standard for seizing and arresting protestors. Under the Fourth amendment it requires probable cause before you can seize and arrest a protestor, correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Yes. Mr. Lieu. Okay. The probable cause has to be particularized to a particular person. So, if a protestor was merely standing around in a crowd in the vicinity of someone else suspected of criminal activity, you cannot arrest that peaceful protestor. In other words, there is no such thing as probable cause by mere association, correct? Attorney General Barr. Well, not strictly. I'll say that you do need particularized probable cause. Mr. Lieu. Okay. If there is no probable cause, then you can't arrest the protestor, correct? Attorney General Barr. If someone jumps into a getaway car and there are three or four people in there that might be enough to give you probable cause. Just those circumstances. You don't need it on each individual. Mr. Lieu. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Attorney General. If there is no probable cause, you can't arrest a protestor, correct? Attorney General Barr. I said at the beginning arrest has to be predicated on probable cause. Mr. Lieu. All right. Now, an arrest can also occur whether or not the federal official says it is an arrest. So, for example, if a federal officer takes a protestor into custody, transport that protestor, let us say, to a federal building, detains a person for questioning, that will constitute an arrest whether or not the federal official says the person is under arrest, correct? Attorney General Barr. That would require a very intensive review of all the specifics involved. Mr. Lieu. Actually, it would. In the case of Dunaway v. New York, which is Black letter law for over 40 years, the question is whether the police violated the Fourth and Fifteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioners into custody, transported him to a police station, and detained him for questioning. The answer is yes, that would constitute an arrest. Attorney General Barr. No, the answer is that's--you know, Fourth amendment is ultimately governed by reasonableness and there can be circumstances. The question sometimes is when does something actually become-- Mr. Lieu. Reclaiming my time. I am cite--this is not a trick question, Mr. Barr. I am just citing you what the Supreme Court said. So here is the problem. Under this standard Black letter law, which has been in effect over 40 years, what the federal forces in Portland did was unconstitutional. Federal forces in full combat gear in the dark of night grabbed a protestor who was peacefully standing there, forced him into an unmarked van, drove him to a separate location, searched him, detained him, and questioned him. That is what police states do. That is what authoritarian regimes do. Attorney General Barr. I don't think those were the facts. Mr. Lieu. That is not--I haven't asked you a question yet, Mr. Barr. What the federal officials did was illegal because they didn't have probable cause. How do we know that? Because Deputy Director of the Federal Protector Service, Chris Cline, admitted it on national TV. Deputy Director Cline said that the individual that they were questioning was in a crowd and in an area where another individual was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers. That is guilt by association. That is what the Fourth amendment prohibits. Deputy Director Cline further stated that the protestor was released after federal officials concluded, quote, ``They did not have what they needed,'' unquote, which again shows there is no probable cause, and it appears that federal--Deputy Director Cline appears to understand that there was no probable cause because he essentially justifies that action by saying it wasn't an arrest. He calls it, quote, ``a simple engagement,'' unquote. I am a former prosecutor. I have never heard that term ``a simple engagement'' because it is a made-up excuse. What these federal officials did was an arrest. They grabbed a peaceful protestor, they forced him into a van, drove him to another location, questioned him. That is exactly what the Supreme Court prohibited over 40 years ago. Attorney General Barr. So, I, obviously-- Mr. Lieu. That is not an isolated incident. Attorney General Barr. I, obviously, don't know the-- Mr. Lieu. The Washington Post--I haven't asked you a question yet. In a Washington Post article on July 24th entitled Operation Diligent Valor, federal agents told reporters that there is no basis for these arrests. They said, quote, ``At times they would grab the individual and take them inside the courthouse for questioning before determining that they had no probable cause to charge him with any crime,'' unquote. Deputy Director Cline said that they coordinated with the U.S. Attorney's Office on all these arrests. I urge you to instruct your federal officials to comply with the Constitution and I ask you to investigate these arrests because many of them are in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We do not live in a police state. We are better than that. I yield back. Attorney General Barr. Well-- Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Lesko? Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since Representative Lieu didn't allow you any time to answer his allegations, would you care to answer any of these allegations? Attorney General Barr. Yes. I mean, obviously, I don't know all the particulars of any individual case out there. Based on my general understanding, what had happened was that when they tried to effectuate arrests of the ringleaders or the people who were engaged in violence or that they saw with lasers and so forth and they went out, they were immediately swarmed by people in Black and there was a lot of violence. So, they couldn't effectuate the arrests. So, the modus operandi was changed, and based on specific information as to individuals who were seen doing things and identified, they later tried to pick them up when there was less of a risk of this kind of mob response. The fact that you--if you have information that someone has a laser and is using it and later pick him up and he doesn't have it, it doesn't mean that there wasn't probable cause. It means he doesn't have the laser. The question is, was it reasonable for you to rely on the information that you had and the identification of that individual. In some cases, it could be a misidentification. In other cases, it could be the person ditched the laser. So, there is a distinction between whether the person ultimately can be shown to have violated the law and whether there was probable cause for the police to make the inquiry and take them and interrogate them, or ask them questions, at least. Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I think--I have to tell you, you probably know this. My constituents are scared. Americans are scared. They watch the TV. They see all this rioting, looting going on, statues being torn down. In Arizona, where I am from, more guns are being sold than ever. I think there is more new gun owners than ever, and this has to stop, and I think that it is really important, as the saying goes, that to solve a problem the first step is to realize there is a problem. So, I find it very disturbing, should I say, that Chair Nadler denies that Antifa even exists. He said it to a reporter. He said it on the floor of the United States House of Representatives that it was a fantasy, a made-up fantasy. Then in this very room just recently, Congresswoman Jayapal, who represents the Seattle area, said--when I was talking about the autonomous zone and the takeover, she said, ``the area is just a few miles from where I sit right now and there is no takeover.'' There is no takeover. She also said, ``lies are being spread by my colleagues in this committee. This area is perfectly peaceful.'' She also said, ``my Republican colleagues keep saying the Seattle police precinct was taken over by protestors. This is incorrect. Incorrect. No one has taken over that building.'' Mr. Attorney General, is that your understanding of what happened there? Do you agree with Ms. Jayapal that there was no takeover, it was just peaceful? Ms. Jayapal. Jayapal. If you are going to say my name, please say it right. It is Jayapal. Ms. Lesko. Jayapal. Would you agree with that? Also, in answer, why do you think these autonomous zones in Democrat-led cities are dangerous to America? Attorney General Barr. Well, starting with the--they are dangerous because they are purporting to keep on the outside duly constituted authority of the government. They're also, to me, outrageous because the people who are living now under this autonomous zone haven't selected the government. They've selected the duly authorized government of the city and the state. So, it's quite an outrage that people would use force to take over an area. What makes me concerned for the country is this is the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our great two political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts. Why can't we just say violence against federal courts has to stop? Could we hear something like that? Ms. Lesko. Mr. Attorney General, I totally agree. I support what you are doing, and I support what President Trump is doing for law and order in our country. I yield back. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. The Committee will stand in recess for five minutes. [Recess.] Chair Nadler. The Committee will resume. Mr. Cicilline? Mr. Cicilline. Sir, in your opening statement you continue with your sustained effort to undermine the finding of Russian interference in our election. On March 20, 2019, you sent a letter to the Committee mischaracterizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's finding that Vladimir Putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion to benefit Donald Trump. Mr. Mueller promptly sent you a letter calling you out for your mischaracterization and you never corrected it. You then delayed the release of the full report, leaving the American people stewing with your misleading summary in support of President Trump's bogus claims that there was no collusion and no obstruction. You repeat these claims today, that there was no basis for this investigation, and it was politically motivated by calling it the Russiagate scandal. Of course, in December of 2019, the Justice Department's own inspector general, your department's--Michael Horowitz-- found that the investigation had been initiated properly and without political bias. Isn't that correct? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Cicilline. It is not correct? That was not Mr. Horowitz's finding? Attorney General Barr. No. He said-- Mr. Cicilline. You are wrong, Mr. Attorney General. He found the investigation had been initiated properly. Attorney General Barr. No, he said that he found no evidence--he said he found no evidence-- Mr. Cicilline. Reclaiming my time. Without political bias. Attorney General Barr. He said he found no evidence. Mr. Cicilline. In April--reclaiming my time, Mr. Attorney. In April of this year, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously found that Russia interfered with our elections and attempted to undermine American democracy, correct? Attorney General Barr. I said so, too. Mr. Cicilline. Is it ever appropriate, sir, for the President to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election? Attorney General Barr. It depends what kind of assistance. Mr. Cicilline. Is it ever appropriate for the President or presidential candidate to accept or solicit foreign assistance of any kind in his or her election? Attorney General Barr. No, it's not appropriate. Mr. Cicilline. Okay. I saw you had to struggle with that one, Mr. Attorney General. Now, let us turn to the First Amendment. Americans across this country have been exercising their First amendment rights to peacefully protest police brutality against Black people. I have read your statement. I listened to you this morning and we are certainly aware of certain individuals who have engaged in violent acts and we all agree that is wrong. There was a lot missing from your statement. For example, as I am sure you have also seen, the vast majority of the protestors are peaceful, and despite that, unidentified federal agents have attempted to prevent these mothers, veterans, and peaceful Americans from exercising their First amendment rights, even using unmarked vehicles to grab protestors off the street and using tear gas and munitions against them. You forcefully condemned protestors this morning. Let me ask you, sir, why have you not condemned the federal officers you are sending into cities without proper training or attempting to take away the constitutional rights of Americans peacefully protesting? Attorney General Barr. I haven't condemned protestors. Protestors are good. Demonstrations are good. They're part of the First Amendment. Mr. Cicilline. So let me ask you-- Attorney General Barr. What I'm condemning is people who commit crimes. Mr. Cicilline. Yeah, we agree. Do you think it is ever appropriate, Mr. Barr, for officers to use force against peaceful protestors, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. Not against peaceful protestors. Mr. Cicilline. So, you also don't mention in your statement today or your testimony that federal officers have even tear gassed elected representatives. County Commissioner Sharon Myron confirmed firsthand, ``Last night I was tear gassed by a federal occupying force I saw throw canisters of poison without warning into a nonviolent crowd, including elders and the vulnerable.'' On July 23rd, the mayor, Ted Wheeler, was tear gassed. He called the tactics of the officers abhorrent. These are elected representatives with grave concerns that officers are using abhorrent tactics including tear gassing elderly nonviolent Americans. So, let me ask you, sir, do you think it is ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protestors, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. Well, the problem in these things sometimes occur because it is hard to separate people who may-- Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Barr, my question is very specific. Do you think it is ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protestors, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. It is appropriate to use tear gas when it's indicated to disperse-- Mr. Cicilline. On peaceful protestors-- Attorney General Barr. --to disperse an unlawful assembly and sometimes-- Mr. Cicilline. Sir-- Attorney General Barr. --unfortunately, peaceful protestors are affected by it. Mr. Cicilline. Okay. Now, I am going to show you. There is video evidence as well. I am going to ask you to look at this video. [Video is played.] Mr. Cicilline. That video was of Christopher David, a Navy veteran, being beaten and tear gassed by the officers. Do you think that was appropriate? Attorney General Barr. Well, I didn't see him tear gassed. There seems to be gas in the area. I don't know what kind of gas it was, and I don't know whether it was directed at him. Mr. Cicilline. Do you think what happened to Mr. David was appropriate, Mr. Barr? Attorney General Barr. I think the inspector is reviewing that particular incident. Mr. Cicilline. Well, do you think he deserved to get pepper sprayed and beaten to the point of broken bones? Attorney General Barr. As I say, the inspector general is going to review the incident. Mr. Cicilline. So, as the top law enforcement official in our country, do you think Americans who show up to peacefully protest should expect to be beaten and pepper sprayed and have their bones broken by federal officers? Attorney General Barr. Well, I don't think that what was happening immediately around the courthouse was a peaceful protest. Mr. Cicilline. That is not my question, Mr. Barr. Attorney General Barr. Well, that's where that-- Mr. Cicilline. My question is do you think as the chief-- reclaiming my time. Attorney General Barr. That's where the video is from. That's where the video was from. Mr. Cicilline. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Barr. My question is do you think, as the top law enforcement official in this country, that Americans who show up to peacefully protest should expect to be beaten, pepper sprayed, and have their bones broken by federal officials? Yes or no. Attorney General Barr. I don't think peaceful protestors should face that, which is one of the reasons-- Mr. Cicilline. That is correct. Isn't protecting the First Amendment, the freedom of Americans, at least as important as protecting a building from vandalism? Attorney General Barr. I think that-- Mr. Cicilline. We fought for--I have not posed a question. We fought for a democracy for the right to speak freely and you are attempting to take that away. What is worse, you are doing it for the sole purpose of furthering the President's political agenda and generating footage for Trump campaign commercials. The Justice Department is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of Americans, not to serve as the President's personal bully or political director. Speaking of protestors, it is worth remembering every suffragette, every person who marched to end child labor, every abolitionist who demanded an end to slavery was a protestor. The revolutionaries who transformed us from colonists into a Nation were protestors. Protestors aren't chaos. They are deeply American examples of values, a desire for this country to be at its best self. They are righteous. Sometimes they are necessary. One of America's most beloved and effective protestors, John Lewis, lies in State a thousand feet from here in a deserved place of honor. Sir, your failure to respect the role of peaceful protest in this country is a disgrace. It is un-American and it is important to remember what these protests are about, Black lives matter. Abuse at the hands of police by Black Americans, and I want to let now see a video that fairly represents peaceful protests that is happening across America that you conveniently omitted from your testimony and your statement. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, he is over-- Mr. Cicilline. There was a nine-minute video shown by the other side. So, I expect the same courtesy. Mr. Jordan. It is not all nine. Only part of it. [Video is played.] Mr. Cicilline. With that, I yield back. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair? Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, just really quick. I don't think we have ever had a hearing where the witness wasn't allowed to respond to points made, questions asked, and attacks made, not just in this hearing, not just in this committee, but every Committee I have been on. Chair Nadler. The gentleman. Mr. Jordan. Particularly when you think about the fact that we have got the attorney general of the United States here. Chair Nadler. The gentleman does not have the time. Mr. Jordan. I don't want the time. I want the attorney general to be able to have enough time to respond to accusations and questions asked him and you guys not cut him off. Chair Nadler. What you want is irrelevant, irrelevant of the rules. Mr. Steube is recognized. Mr. Steube. Mr. Chair, am I going to get an additional 2\1/ 2\ minutes that Mr. Cicilline had? Chair Nadler. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Steube. Attorney General Barr, thank you for your service to our country and your continued service to ensure that our country is safe. I encourage you to ignore the mob. These attacks from Democrats and the left-wing biased mainstream media. Be strong and courageous, for the mass majority of the country supports you and supports you rooting out corruption in the FBI and keeping our country safe from rioters, looters, and anarchists. I, for one, am very happy that you are at the helm of the DOJ and actually supporting the rule of law and fighting for justice. I want to touch on something that Mr. Jordan spoke about in his opening remarks. I want to focus on the inspector general's December 9th FISA report on the FBI's unlawful surveillance of Trump campaign associate, Carter Page. Isn't it true the inspector general found the FBI under the Obama-Biden Administration made 17 significant errors in FISA applications to surveille candidate Trump's campaign associate, Carter Page? Attorney General Barr. I think that's right. Mr. Steube. How many errors are acceptable when the FBI is targeting Americans? Attorney General Barr. Well, none are acceptable. Mr. Steube. Then there were the complete Woods files failures the FBI operated under during the Obama-Biden Administration. The inspector general found that 51 factual assertions in the FISA applications to surveille Page, one, lacked supporting documentation, two, the supporting document did not support the FBI's factual assertions, or three, the supporting document showed the FBI's factual assertion was inaccurate. The inspector general testified there should not have even been one error. Yet, he found 51 errors. Why is it so important for surveillance targeting Americans to be error free? Attorney General Barr. Well, especially under FISA, which is a counterintelligence tool and doesn't have the same built- in protections that the criminal justice process would have. It is very important because you are going to be spying on Americans that you've demonstrated an appropriate basis for doing that and, therefore, there's a special burden on the investigative agency, in this case the FBI, to have accurate information as to the basis of their surveillance. I think the bureau has been working very hard to correct those problems and to put in place a much more effective system of guaranteeing that the information is accurate. Mr. Steube. Isn't it true the FBI, under the Obama-Biden Administration, cherry picked favorable evidence to obtain a FISA warrant to surveille Carter Page and ignore facts that cut against probable cause? Attorney General Barr. Well, I don't want to characterize. I mean, this is part of what's under review. Some exculpatory information was not passed along to the court. Let me just put it that way. That's evident in the inspector general's report. Mr. Steube. I will yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Attorney General, do you deploy federal law enforcement to enforce federal law? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Jordan. Do you deploy federal law enforcement to protect federal property? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Jordan. Would the federal building in Portland be standing today if you had not deployed federal law enforcement? Attorney General Barr. I don't think so. There have been multiple attempts to set it afire. Mr. Jordan. Yeah, for-- Attorney General Barr. I have to say I don't understand why a small contingent of marshals inside the court poses a threat to anybody's First amendment rights. They set up a fence on federal property, I am told, around the court and when people are arrested it's because they're trying to come into the fence. These aren't peaceful protestors. They bring power tools to cut through the wire and so forth to get in. This is a very strange occupation of a State when you have a hundred, 120 federal people behind the fence trying to protect the building and all these people are trying to cut their way in. That is the occupation of a city. Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Did the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police or President ask for your help? Attorney General Barr. Did who ask for my help? Mr. Jordan. The head of the FOP in Chicago. Did they ask for your help? Attorney General Barr. I think they did. I think they did. Mr. Jordan. Previous exchange. They talked about Mr. Horowitz's report. Is there anything you would like to add? You didn't get a chance to respond to that. Attorney General Barr. Yeah. My recollection of the report is that it didn't find there was no bias. He made that clear in subsequent testimony. What he said was he couldn't find no documentary or other evidence demonstrating bias. Mr. Jordan. Yeah, and would be helpful if maybe Mr. Horowitz could come in front of this Committee and the individual who was raising that concern with you, Mr. Attorney General, could ask Mr. Horowitz himself about what he found in that report and subsequent reports that we have not yet had a hearing on. Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time--the gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Raskin? Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Sir, did I hear you correctly to say that the purpose of unleashing this federal agent assault with tear gas and rubber bullets and pepper spray on 2,000 nonviolent protestors in Lafayette Square was to secure and defend the St. John's Episcopal Church? Was that the purpose of it? Attorney General Barr. No, I didn't say that. I made very clear that the purpose was to move the perimeter to I Street, which had been the point as far as I'm aware all day-- Mr. Raskin. So, it was legitimate in that case? Attorney General Barr. I'm talking about the June 1st. Mr. Raskin. Yeah, the June 1st assault on a lot of people including my constituents-- Attorney General Barr. It wasn't an-- Mr. Raskin. --including my constituents, and I would-- Attorney General Barr. Well, it wasn't a--I don't-- Mr. Raskin. --be happy to bring them to your office to talk about it. Attorney General Barr. Okay. Well, I don't think it was an assault. They were told by loudspeaker that the Park Police were preparing to clear H Street and could they move off H Street. Mr. Raskin. Well, reclaiming my time. I think you said something to the effect of the St. John's Episcopal Church would have been overrun. Attorney General Barr. No, that was on Sunday. On Sunday night, I believe. Mr. Raskin. Okay. Are you aware the director of the church that the Episcopal Archbishop of Washington and the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church nationally along with the Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington all denounced this police assault on the civil rights and civil liberties of the people? Attorney General Barr. Did they do that before or after the fire was put out? Mr. Raskin. Well, all that I know is that they denounced what you did, and if you read what the Episcopal archbishop of Washington wrote, said that ``using police force to clear nonviolent protestors without notice in order to conduct this grotesque photo opportunity was antithetical to the principles of Christianity.'' What I wanted to ask you about was COVID-19, because we now lead the world in COVID-19 case count and death count. President Trump, of course, promised the disease would magically disappear. He advertised quack medical cures like injecting people with disinfectant. He told his people to slow down all the testing and refused for months to wear a mask. Last night, he retweeted a number of messages claiming that Dr. Fauci misled the American people by dismissing hydroxychloro-quine as a cure for the disease. So, now we have 150,000 dead Americans, 4 million infected, and 40 million jobless. We lose more than a thousand people every day, one American every 90 seconds. You called his public health leadership superb and you threw the weight of the Justice Department behind his campaign to shut down State public health orders in March and April. Now, if you look at the screen, you will see two tweets from the President of the United States, ``Liberate Michigan,'' ``Liberate Virginia.'' On April 17th, he retweeted the slogans of right-wing protestors that are blocking access to hospitals and trying to overthrow public health orders in those states, and you snapped to attention. On April 27th, you designated a prosecutor to try to bring down those very public health orders in Michigan and Virginia. Two days later, armed right-wing protestors and White supremacists disrupted the Michigan legislature, leveling death threats against Governor Whitmer, confronting police, taunting lawmakers, and forcing the legislature to shut down as they brandished their long guns and shouted in the faces of police officers. You didn't send in a secret paramilitary police force on horseback to unleash tear gas, pepper spray, billy clubs, and rubber bullets against these protestors storming the State capitol in Michigan. No, you embraced their cause by joining litigation against the governors of Michigan and Virginia. Now, of course, your side lost your motions for emergency injunctions. You got to spread Trump's message that it was time to call off the stay-at-home orders, the masking and social distancing. Here is what you said on national TV, echoing the claim in April that the cure was worse than the disease, quote, ``You can't just keep on feeding the patient chemotherapy and say, well, we are killing the cancer because we were getting to the point where we are killing the patient.'' Do you remember saying that? Attorney General Barr. Yeah. Mr. Raskin. What did you mean by that? Attorney General Barr. Exactly what it says. You have to balance the cure with the danger, which we leave to governors. I know everyone likes to lay-- Mr. Raskin. Well, no, you-- Attorney General Barr. I know everyone likes to lay everything at the feet of the President, but this is a federal republic and the President respected that, and our response-- Mr. Raskin. Okay. Reclaiming my time. Excuse me. Attorney General Barr. --and our response has been, largely, run by governors. Now, for someone who claims to be so concerned about executive overreach, I haven't heard anyone talk about just keeping an eye on what the governor is doing. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Barr, with no vaccine-- Attorney General Barr. That is all the Department of Justice was doing in the area of religious liberty. Mr. Raskin. Excuse me. The time is mine. Mr. Jordan. Well said. Mr. Raskin. The Supreme Court rejected your position on religious liberty 5 to 4 and said there was nothing wrong with applying public health orders to churches. Attorney General Barr. That was on an injunction. Mr. Raskin. Do you accept that, or you don't accept it? Well, we will talk about it later. Mr. Barr, with no vaccine, no treatment, no cure in sight, you worked to disarm the states of the only weapon we have against this disease--public health measures. Now, we pay the price of this policy in overrun intensive care units and morgues, a shortage of coffins and refrigerated trucks, and an out of control pandemic which makes us a global pariah State whose citizens cannot enter dozens of foreign countries including Canada. Do you know what Dr. Fauci was saying at the same time that you were moving to take down those public health orders? Here is what Dr. Fauci was warning us about three months ago about the premature abandonment of health orders, if only you had listened. He said, ``I feel if that occurs there is a real risk you will trigger an outbreak and you may not be able to control it,'' which in fact paradoxically-- Attorney General Barr. We were not taking down public health orders. Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time-- Attorney General Barr. We were making narrow-- Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has--the gentleman's time has expired. Attorney General Barr. We were calling attention to the fact-- Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, will you restore my time? Because this witness is speaking over my time. Mr. Jordan. No, you went over time. Let the witness respond. Attorney General Barr. No, I cannot--you were over your time. Voice. He is trying to answer. Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Cline. Mr. Chair? Chair Nadler. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have a governor in Virginia who is engaged in overreach, particularly regarding the civil rights of Virginians and their expression of their religious faith. So, I want to give the attorney general the opportunity to respond to the gentleman from Maryland. Attorney General Barr. Right. We adopted a very narrow approach of calling to the attention, usually by letter, not by lawsuit, of situations where they were treating religion worse than they were other kinds of organizations and gatherings, and the Constitution requires that it be treated the same. We were calling those to the attention of the governors and most of the governors that we called attention to voluntarily changed their own orders. There were a few occasions where we pointed out anomalies in the regulation, differential regulation of business, and, again, mostly they were voluntarily changed by the governors. So, this was not a wholesale attack on stay-at-home orders. It was just that these are very broad powers that have been ceded, basically, telling everyone to stay at home and only work if you're an essential business and so forth, and therefore, someone has to keep an eye on that and make sure there's no overreach. As time went by, there were times when you had these crazy rules that were in effect that were overrule burdensome and raised constitutional problems. Mr. Cline. I want to thank you for raising those points an early, and particularly with regard to Virginia and the church out on the eastern shore. I want to thank you also for being here and for returning to lead the Department of Justice and right the ship and root out the rank partisanship and bias that had corrupted the Department of Justice for many years. The Democrats alleging that Attorney General Barr has politicized the Justice Department doing the personal bidding of President Trump, but it is not only unfounded, it is especially hypocritical in light of the politicization that occurred during the Obama-Biden Administration and led by President Obama's self-described wingman, Attorney General Eric Holder, the Obama Biden Justice Department investigated journalists, shut out career prosecutors, and flouted congressional oversight. I want to ask, particularly, even after President Trump assumed office, FBI lawyers exhibited bias against Trump while working for both, Mueller and the FBI's Russia investigation. The Inspector General couldn't rule out political animus against candidate Trump as influencing FBI abuse, correct? Attorney General Barr. That's my understanding. Mr. Cline. The Inspector General found that an FBI lawyer altered evidence to support a FISA application to surveil Carter Page and critically referred this lawyer to Durham for federal prosecution. The same lawyer who also worked on the investigations in the Clinton's misuse, classified information, and Russia collusion expressed bias against President Trump and the Inspector General testified back in December that he can't rule out bias. Mr. Attorney General, I would ask, what would the consequences be to one of your Justice Department lawyers if they doctored underlying documents so they could support evidence submitted to a federal court? Attorney General Barr. In the abstract talking generally, that lawyer would be fired. Mr. Cline. Would they likely be disbarred, as well? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Cline. Isn't it true that the IG found that an FBI lawyer doctored an email to support probable cause against candidate Trump's campaign aide? Attorney General Barr. I think that's right. Mr. Cline. This same FBI lawyer worked on the Russia investigation, targeting candidate Trump's campaign and was on the special counsel Mueller team investigating President Trump, correct? Attorney General Barr. I'm not sure about that. Mr. Cline. While working on those investigations, the Inspector General found several texts showing that animus, correct? Attorney General Barr. On that particular lawyer, I believe so. Mr. Cline. Yes. Attorney General Barr. I can't remember the time frame of the text, but I know there were other texts. Mr. Cline. I want to talk to you about the unmasking that occurred where Mr. Grenell released a list of 39 officials who submitted a request to unmask the identity of General Flynn from November 8th, 2016, to January 31st of 2017. Forty-nine requests were submitted. Is that a normal number of requests for unmasking? Attorney General Barr. I mean, historically, that's a, that seems to be a high number and the other question you have to ask is why was this after the election? Mr. Cline. Seven Treasury officials, including Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretary Sarah Raskin, is that a normal occurrence? Attorney General Barr. There are times when high-level officials can do it. I don't know enough about the specifics to give-- Mr. Cline. I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Attorney General, what is more important, going to church or going to a protest? Attorney General Barr. It depends on the individual. Mr. Jordan. Both are covered under the First Amendment, right? Attorney General Barr. Right. Mr. Jordan. Yeah. What is more important, going to work or going to a protest? Attorney General Barr. Again, it depends on the individual. We're all free, we can all make our choices. Mr. Jordan. I am talking about government limits on those activities. What is more important, Government putting limits on protesting or Government putting limits on attending church? Attorney General Barr. They're both First Amendment. Mr. Jordan. Exactly. We should treat them the same, shouldn't we? Attorney General Barr. Correct. Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired. Ms. Jayapal? Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Barr, on June 1st there were protested against the murder of George Floyd and police brutality in Lafayette Park. Let us not be distracted by you or my GOP colleagues as to what these powerful and massive protests were actually about. They were about the persistent killing of Black bodies by law enforcement and finally, an awakening in America of the conscious of our country and, yet, your response, Mr. Barr, was to direct federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons, and horses to clear the area just so the President could get a photo-op. So, I do want to ask you, do you think your response, do you think the response at Lafayette Square to tear gas, pepper spray, and beat protesters and injure American citizens who were just simply exercising their First amendment rights was appropriate? Attorney General Barr. Well, first, it's my understanding that no tear gas was used on Monday, June 1st. Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Barr, that is a semantic distinction that has been proven false by many fact-checkers. Attorney General Barr. How is it semantic-- Ms. Jayapal. Do you think-- Attorney General Barr. How is it semantic? Tear gas is a particular compound. Ms. Jayapal. You talked about chemical irritants and it has been proven false by reports, so just answer the question. Do you think it is-- Attorney General Barr. Well, I think pepper-- Ms. Jayapal. --appropriate at Lafayette Park to pepper spray, tear gas, and beat protesters and injure American citizens? Attorney General Barr. Well, I don't accept your characterization of what happened, but as I explained, the effort there was-- Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Barr, I just asked for a yes or no-- Attorney General Barr. The effort there was-- Ms. Jayapal. --so, let me just tell you, I am starting to lose my temper. According to sworn testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee by Army National Guard officer Adam DeMarco who was there, this was, quote, ``an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force against peaceful protesters.'' Attorney General Barr. Well, I don't remember DeMarco as being-- Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Barr, excuse me. This is my time. Attorney General Barr. I don't remember DeMarco as being involved in any of the decision-making. Ms. Jayapal. Sir, the President told governors on a telephone call that the way to deal with the protesters of police brutality and systemic racism like in Lafayette Square is that, quote, ``You have to get much tougher. You have to dominate. If you don't dominate, you are wasting your time. These are terrorists.'' He also talked about you on that call, sir. Here is what he said, ``The Attorney General is here, Bill Barr and we will activate Bill Barr and activate him strongly.'' Do you remember that call, Mr. Barr? Attorney General Barr. Yes, I do. He wasn't talking about protesters. He was talking about rioters. Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Barr, the President believes that you can be activated to implement the President's agenda and dominate American people exercising First amendment rights if they are protesting against him. Let's look at how you respond when the protesters are supporters of the President. On two separate occasions after President Trump tweeted, Liberate Michigan to subvert stay-home orders to protect the public health of people in Michigan. Protesters swarmed the Michigan capitol carrying guns, some with swastikas, Confederate flags and one even with a dark- haired doll with a noose around its neck. Are you aware that these protesters called for the governor to be lynched, shot, and beheaded? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Jayapal. You are not aware of that? Attorney General Barr. I was not aware. Ms. Jayapal. Major protests in Michigan, you are the Attorney General, and you didn't know that the protesters called for the governor to be lynched, shot, and beheaded. So, obviously, you couldn't be concerned about that. You-- Attorney General Barr. Well, there are a lot of protests around the United States and on June 1st, I was worried about the District of Columbia, which is federal. Ms. Jayapal. Attorney General Barr, you seem to be engaging in protests in certain parts of the country. You are very aware of those, but when protesters with guns and swastikas and Confederate flags Attorney General Barr. I am very--I am aware protesters in the Federal Government-- Ms. Jayapal. Excuse me, Mr. Barr. This is my time and I control it. You were aware of certain kinds of protesters, but in Michigan when protesters carry guns and Confederate flags and swastikas and call for the governor of Michigan to be beheaded and shot and lynched, somehow you are not aware of that, somehow you didn't know about it, so you didn't send federal agents in to do to the President's supporters, what you did to the President's protesters; in fact, you didn't put pepper balls on those protesters. So, the point I am trying to make here, Mr. Barr, that I think is very important for the country to understand is that there is a real discrepancy in how you react as the attorney general, the top cop in this country, when White men with swastikas storm a government building with guns, there is no need for the President to, quote, ``activate you,'' because they are getting the President's personal agenda done. When Black people and people of color protest police brutality, systemic racism and the President's very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers, pepper bombs, because they are considered terrorists by the President. You take an aggressive approach to Black Lives Matter protests, but not to right-wing extremists threatening to lynch a governor if it is for the Trump's, if it is for the President's benefit. Did I get it right, Mr. Barr? Attorney General Barr. I have responsibility for the Federal Government and the White House as the seat of the Executive Branch-- Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Barr, let me just make it clear. Attorney General Barr. --not to the-- Ms. Jayapal. You are supposed to represent-- Attorney General Barr. The Michigan authorities can handle-- Ms. Jayapal. --the people of the United States of America, not violate people's First amendment rights. You are supposed to uphold democracy and secure equal justice under the law, not violently dismantle certain protesters based on the President's personal agenda. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time is expired. Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to also introduce into the record, a report from the MIT election data and science lab, which says that the over the past 20 years, more than 250 million ballots have been cast by mail and the fraud rate is 0.00006 percent. Chair Nadler. Without objection. [The information follows:] MS. JAYAPAL FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Nadler. Mr. Reschenthaler? Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Attorney General Barr for being here today. I truly appreciate it and I am sincere when I say it is an honor. Attorney General Barr, let me just-- Attorney General Barr. Could I just ask you for one minute, though? Mr. Reschenthaler. To respond? Yes. Attorney General Barr. Yeah. As I made clear, moving H Street out to I Street as the perimeter was the decision made the day before. It was justified by the extreme rioting that was going on around the White House. I don't remember Captain DeMarco, who was the same Captain DeMarco who ran as a Democratic candidate for Congress in Maryland, even being close to the discussions as to what was going on. Now, the fact is that the movement was not geared to the behavior of that particular crowd; it was geared to the fact that we were moving the perimeter around so we could put a fence up on H Street, by H Street. So, but it is a fact that the Park Police reported, and I saw it myself, projectiles being thrown from that crowd, so I did not consider them peaceful at all, peaceful protesters. I'm sorry, thank you for giving me that opportunity. Mr. Reschenthaler. You are welcome, Attorney General Barr. Attorney General Barr, I would also like to talk about the violent protests that are being seen in Seattle, specifically CHAZ, and also Portland, Oregon. As you know, over the course of June and early July, several shootings occurred inside Seattle's police-free zone, including the tragic murders of a 16-year-old and a 19-year-old. There were numerous reports of robberies, assaults, and property destruction, as well. Attorney General Barr. Sexual assaults, as well. Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes. Despite all this, all this chaos, all this violence, it took the Seattle mayor literally weeks to declare this an unlawful gathering and it took weeks before the police were allowed to clear that area. In similar circumstances, let's talk about Portland, Oregon. It has been going through 8 weeks of violent rioting in the streets, as well. Rioters continue, in fact, to fire projectiles and mortar-style fireworks at federal law enforcement officers and are using dangerous lasers, which have already permanently blinded at least 3 federal officers, yet our own Chair, Chair Jerry Nadler told a reporter on Sunday that the anarchy and violence going on in Portland, and I quote, ``the Chair, is a myth that is spread only in Washington, DC,'' end quote. Attorney General Barr, is it, in fact, a myth that there's anarchy and anarchist groups engaging in violence in Portland? Attorney General Barr. I think there are anarchists and far-left groups that are involved in the violence in Portland. I actually think that Chair's comment was about Antifa. I'm not sure, I don't know exactly what he said, but I thought he was referring to Antifa. Mr. Reschenthaler. Well, do you think it is a myth that Antifa is involved in this anarchy? Attorney General Barr. No, I think Antifa is involved in Portland. Mr. Reschenthaler. So, either way, the Chair's comments were not correct, were not accurate. Attorney General Barr. I didn't consider them accurate. Mr. Reschenthaler. What about the autonomous zone in Seattle? Congresswoman Jayapal has said, and I quote, ``that it is a peaceful protest zone.'' Is it a peaceful protest zone? Attorney General Barr. No. As I already said, it's outrageous that people set themselves up in, over a piece of territory where the people in there have not selected them as the government and tried to exercise sovereign authority. That's an outrage. We saw people handing out guns to people to, quote, ``keep the peace,'' and so forth. It was anarchy there. Mr. Reschenthaler. Your office has already charged several violent protesters with federal crimes. Can you just briefly elaborate on those crimes. Attorney General Barr. Well, they're the whole gamut. I think we've had 224. They run the gamut from throwing Molotov cocktails to assaulting a police officer, that kind of thing. Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Attorney General Barr. I just want to say that I think, and I don't know if you agree, that CHAZ in Portland is really like political experiments. They really show us what would happen if we fully embrace the radical ideology of the social justice Democrats. Now, according to Democrats, it is the summer of love. According to the congresswoman that represents Seattle, it is a peaceful protest zone. Attorney General Barr, in reality, these cities are experiences violence, chaos, and, frankly, just anarchy. So, I think this political experiment has showed us that the liberal, social justice, and Democrat-style government has failed. Would you like to comment on that Attorney General Barr? Attorney General Barr. Well, when I was first being, going through confirmation, I expressed concern about violence getting into our political system. We've seen some, this intolerance and attacking people and I was very worried about that. Now, we've seen it sweeping through the country like this and I hope the Democratic party takes a stand against the violence. Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you. I yield my time. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Demings? Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Barr, during your--over here. Attorney General Barr. I'm sorry. Ms. Demings. Over here in the corner. [Laughter.] Ms. Demings. Earlier during your testimony, you talked about gun violence and you asked the question, what about those lives? Yes, Mr. Barr, those lives do matter, but do you believe that police officers should be held or are held to a higher standard? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Someone mentioned my comment about we shouldn't permit resistance, we shouldn't take that as a matter of course, but I'd never suggest that just because someone resists, that that justifies whatever's done by no means-- Ms. Demings. Thank you so much for that, because good police officers also believe that they are also held to a higher standard-- Attorney General Barr. Yeah. Ms. Demings. --so, I am glad to hear you say that. As a former police detective, I have solved many cases based on patterns of behavior and there is an alarming pattern, I believe, that is developing. It appears, Mr. Barr, that every time the U.S. Attorney investigates the President or those close to him, he or she is removed and replaced by one of your friends. You have removed U.S. attorneys in the Eastern District of New York, the District of Columbia, and the Eastern District of Texas. On June 19th, you announced Mr. Berman would be stepping down. Let me just be clear, when you told America that Mr. Berman was stepping down, did Mr. Berman tell you he was stepping down? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Demings. Okay. Attorney General Barr. But stepping down is the language that I am told-- Ms. Demings. Okay. He did not tell you that? Attorney General Barr. No. No. Ms. Demings. Okay. Attorney General Barr. It's the language we usually use to leave flexibility as to whether the person is it on their own. Ms. Demings. Okay. On June 20th, when asked about the basis for Mr. Berman's removal, on the very day you announced he was being fired, stepping down, the President's personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani suggested that and I quote, ``the reason may lie in the fact that Berman's office got involved in what Giuliani described as baseless investigations.'' Sir, if that wasn't true, if you didn't remove Mr. Berman because he was overseeing investigations of the President and those close to him, why would the President's personal attorney think that? Attorney General Barr. I'm sorry, what did he say and when? I didn't hear the quote. Ms. Demings. Mr. Giuliani suggests that-- Attorney General Barr. Okay. When? When? Ms. Demings. June 20th. June 20th, that he may have been fired because he was investigating baseless investigations. Attorney General Barr. Well, if he said that, that's nonsense. Number one, anyone familiar with the Department of Justice would say that removing a component head is not going to have any effect on any pending investigation. Ms. Demings. Okay. I know you are aware of reports that Berman's office was, in fact, investigated. The President's former personal attorney, Mr. Cohen; his current personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani; his current personal attorney's associates; and his Presidential inauguration. Mr. Barr? Attorney General Barr. I don't mean to suggest just by my silence that I'm confirming that. That seems to be your opinion. Ms. Demings. Okay. All right. Have you, in any way, attempted to influence or interfere with any investigation in the Southern District, including the investigations I just mentioned? Attorney General Barr. I've not interfered in any investigation. I've raised questions on occasion about certain matters, but as far as I'm aware, the office was satisfied with resolution of matters. Ms. Demings. Mr. Berman testified your efforts to remove him bypassed the normal operation of law. Attorney General Barr. No, they didn't. No, they didn't. Ms. Demings. Now, we know the OLC indicates that a sitting President cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted, because you made sure President Trump understood that in your 19-page or however long application, job application; however, you are aware that the special counsel confirmed that a sitting President can be investigated. You did read that in the special counsel's report; is that correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Ms. Demings. Given Mr. Trump's residence and former business location, the Southern District, Berman's office would have decision-making authority over whether to investigate the President himself and you removed him. Attorney General Barr. I've explained why I removed him. Ms. Demings. Okay. Sitting here today under penalty of perjury, do you still maintain, as you stated in a February 13th interview, that the President has never asked you to do anything in a criminal case, yes or no, please? Attorney General Barr. Yeah--no. I mean, will I confirm it; is that the question? Ms. Demings. No. Do you stand by your testimony or your-- Attorney General Barr. He has never asked me, directed me, pressured me to do anything in a criminal case. Ms. Demings. Okay. All right. You are aware, and I think you had this conversation earlier with one of my colleagues, that the President's former attorney, Mr. Cohen, was released early from prison due to concerns of COVID-19. Attorney General Barr. Yes. Ms. Demings. Okay. Why did you support the decision to send Mr. Cohen back to prison? Attorney General Barr. I didn't even know there was a decision to send him back. Ms. Demings. Did you support it, based--after you-- Attorney General Barr. Well, I haven't looked into it enough, but-- Ms. Scanlon. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman's time is expired. Attorney General Barr. --my understanding of why it happened was-- Ms. Demings. Mr. Barr, as a former-- Ms. Scanlon. The gentlewoman's time is expired. Ms. Demings. --police chief, the President has made a mockery of the Department of Justice and I believe as the Nation's top cop, no one should care more about that than you. Attorney General Barr. Your-- Ms. Demings. Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you. Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Armstrong is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ten years ago, this summer in July in my hometown, it was a beautiful day. People were golfing, kids were swimming, everybody was playing baseball. Just a perfect, gorgeous, sunny summer day in Dickinson, North Dakota, and in the span of 8 minutes, a tornado came through and destroyed, caused unbelievable economic devastation. I don't think anybody woke up the next morning and said it was a mostly peaceful day. I want to talk specifically about what is going on in Portland with you, Mr. Attorney General, because for 61 nights, the federal courthouse is under siege, but not just the courthouse, federal agents are under siege. You have men and women there protecting that courthouse. Now, I have no doubt if they weren't there, that courthouse would not be standing right now. Would you agree with that? Attorney General Barr. Absolutely. Mr. Armstrong. I think one of our problems is how we talk about this and how it is covered versus what is actually going on every single night in Portland at that courthouse. Can you explain what your officers and your agents are going through over there. Attorney General Barr. Yes. I'm talking about the U.S. Marshals who were in the courthouse. They've initially tried to contain themselves in the courthouse. There have been efforts to push through in, in the main door. When people have succeeded in breaching the courthouse, they have thrown kerosene, fireworks, and started fires. So, then the effort was to make sure that they cannot breach. There still have been breaches into the courthouse, but, basically, they try to remain in there and starting after the 4th, they tried to arrest the people who were directing fireworks. They would climb up on to the side of the court, break windows, shoot fireworks in, and whenever the marshals came out to try to put an end to that or interdict it, they were shot at with sling shots, lasers were constantly being put into their eyes, even when they were inside the courthouse. There's a good description of it in an AP story-- Mr. Armstrong. I was just going to quote that. We don't have to take your word. I watched as injured officers were hauled inside. In one case, the commercial firework came over so fast the officer didn't have time to respond. It burned through his sleeve and he had bloody gashes on both forearms. Another had a concussion from being hit in the head with a mortar. Attorney General Barr. Right. That's right. We've had a lot of injuries out there and these are people who this Congress has charged with protecting federal courts; they are directed to protect federal courts in the U.S. Code and they are under attack and they're being injured and it's been constant for 60 days. Mr. Armstrong. Acting Secretary Wolf has said that the violent mobs are publishing personal information of federal officers, jeopardizing not only them, but their families. Why is doxxing federal agents so dangerous and are you concerned about it? Attorney General Barr. Well, it's dangerous because people can take retaliation against their homes, their families, or them, when they're by themselves. I see some of these Latin American countries in Central America where the police are very, very brave because the gangs they're trying to deal with go to their houses and kill their families and you never think that could happen here, but you could never think some of the stuff that we're seeing today could ever happen here. Mr. Armstrong. Is being burned by, essentially, improvised explosive device, being blinded by lasers, is this something that typically happens with federal marshals in federal courthouses? Attorney General Barr. No, not at all. Mr. Armstrong. How is this handled, how is this going for recruitment, morale, how are they doing? I mean, I generally want to know, how are they doing? Attorney General Barr. Well, I think that AP story gives you a feel. They feel that's their duty and they feel that's where they have to be. A number of them are from that area, but they're extremely tired and we've had to rotate in some more or put in some more people because they're very, very tired and you make mistakes when you're tired. Mr. Armstrong. Well, and I think that is an important part, because I think one of the most amazing parts of this whole thing, it started with under 30 agents there, now it is still under 100. Sixty-one nights in a row they defend against a siege, fires, burning down these things. What is the most amazing thing? They get up every morning and that courthouse is still running. They are still conducting the Federal Government's business. So, I am going to say something that I think should be said a lot more often: Tell them thank you; tell the courthouse personnel thank you; tell the clerks thank you; tell the prosecutors thank you; and tell the judges thank you. If you can handle it, can you tell the public defenders thank you, too, because they are still conducting the business. They do this every single night. Are they getting sleep? Attorney General Barr. The marshals are having a difficult time because the demonstrators go to the hotel. They also go from hotel to hotel because the demonstrators try to disrupt their sleep at the hotel. Mr. Armstrong. There is a difference between a protest and a riot, and every night at some point in time in Portland, it turns into a riot eventually. When you wake up the next morning and you know it is going to happen again, then we need to figure out a way to stop it. Attorney General Barr. Yeah. Mr. Armstrong. Then just one last question. Why would we have to negotiate a ceasefire with a peaceful protest? Attorney General Barr. You're correct. Why would, that's right. What we would like to see and all we would like is what we see in the rest of the country, which is State and local law enforcement taking care of their own city and taking care of the streets around the courthouse. Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time is expired. Chair Nadler. [Presiding.] Mr. Correa is recognized. Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Barr, welcome. Let's talk a little bit about the census if we can. As you know, that is the process where, every 10 years we decide how many congressional seats each State gets, how much funding for schools, health care, other issues, and each region gets. Let's talk about the President's memo directing the commerce secretary to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count of the 2020 Census count. Mr. Barr, the President essentially is saying something, trying to do something that is unconstitutional and illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment, and I quote, ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting whole number of persons in each state.'' Then federal law, as you know, 2 U.S.C. 2a, and I quote, ``The President shall transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each state.'' Did I read those correctly, sir, more or less? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Correa. Do you agree that the President's memo essentially violates the Constitution? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Correa. Are undocumented people not whole individuals? Attorney General Barr. Are not what? Mr. Correa. Are undocumented individuals in this country not whole people? Attorney General Barr. They are obviously people, but the legal issue there was the terminology of the Constitution-- Mr. Correa. Well, if I may-- Attorney General Barr. --it reflects the decision at the time of the Constitution that they count inhabitants-- Mr. Correa. If I may reclaim my time, sir. You used to work for the Department of Justice back in 1989. There was a letter written to Senator Jeff Bingaman by the DOJ on point. If there is a slide, is there a letter, and I would ask unanimous consent to admit that to the record. Chair Nadler. Without objection. [The information follows:] MR. CORREA FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Correa. I quote, ``in the past, the Department of Justice has taken the position that section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the original apportionment and Census Clause of article 1, section 2 of the Constitution, requires that inhabitants of states who are illegal aliens be included in the census count.'' In our view, this issue today, we have found no basis for reversing that position. Are you reversing that position now? Attorney General Barr. Well, I think what the Department advised is that this came up because Alabama claims you cannot count illegal aliens in the census under the Constitution. The Department looked at it and advised that Congress can determine the meaning of inhabitant for this purpose, that it is not a self-defining term as that they recognize. Mr. Correa. I only have 2 minutes, sir. Mr. Barr, if I may-- Attorney General Barr. Yeah, but this is a hearing. I thought I was the one that was supposed to be heard. Mr. Correa. Well, let me, and I am going to get there. The current dispute, you talked back when the Supreme Court struck down the President's attempt to put a citizenship question on the census, at that time the President announced an executive order to collect citizenship information by other means. At that time, you made reference to a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included in the apportionment purposes. Is that what you are referring to now, sir? Attorney General Barr. I think that I could have been referring to the Alabama case. Mr. Correa. So, is the DOJ studying this issue? Attorney General Barr. I can't remember what I was referring to. Mr. Correa. Have you concluded? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Correa. Can you provide this Committee with discussions, any research, any concluding memos on that issue? Attorney General Barr. I'll look into it. We have considered it and as I said, our advice is, has been that Congress does have the power to define the term inhabitant to either include or exclude illegal aliens. Mr. Correa. We are talking about the President's executive orders here, sir. Attorney General Barr. Well, Congress has delegated that power to the commerce secretary. So, as the law stands now, we think the commerce secretary, as the delegate of congressional power, can define that term. Mr. Correa. Mr. Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. That's a reasonable argument to make. Mr. Correa. Mr. Attorney General, in the last few seconds I have, President has to be within the law. Nobody is above the law in this country, including the President of the United States. My concern is he goes around doing tweets, memos, dictums that are clearly unconstitutional. My district, sir, is a working class, a hard-working community, immigrants, the greatest generation. All we want is equity based on the census. We want to make sure we get our federal dollars like everybody else around the country. We want to make sure that our representation is equal, individual; individually in Orange County, as it is in other parts of the country. All that we ask for is respect, sir. I ask you, please tell the President, stop tweeting things, stopping writing memos that are clearly, clearly unconstitutional. Thank you very much, and I yield. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Tiffany? Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General Barr, will you send a thank you to the law enforcement people that work for you for the work that they are doing here across the United States of America. Attorney General Barr. Sure. Mr. Tiffany. I want to thank all the law enforcement across our country. We are an imperfect country, but law enforcement has done, they do a good job across our country and they should be recognized for that. I am going to ask you a question about Mr. Bernell Trammell from Milwaukee, here in just a minute. He was the man who was shot to death at the end of last week. He is the African- American man who was wearing a sign, and he is regularly known around Milwaukee for carrying a Trump for President sign. I want to share with you what happened in Madison, Wisconsin, so we all understand that this is not a myth about Antifa. So, when the riots hit Minneapolis and then extended around the country, they hit Madison, Wisconsin, also. I don't know if you have ever visited Madison, Wisconsin-- Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Tiffany. --there is an iconic street there called State Street. It starts at the capitol and runs all the way down to the University of Wisconsin Madison, and that street, if you go there now, 75 businesses are boarded up as a result of a mayor and city council who would not protect those people. Those people went to the city council last week and they asked for some assistance. The city council, who would not protect their business, they said, no, we are not going to provide you for assistance. Shortly after State Street, and State Street was destroyed. By the way, it is disappointing in some of the film that I have seen that the police cruiser that went flaming down State Street was not included that. Shortly after that, about a week afterwards, two monuments at the State capitol that I used to walk by all the time were torn down. One was of Hans Christian Hague, who was the abolitionist, Norwegian immigrant who died at Chickamauga defending the Union and providing for the end of slavery, fighting for the end of slavery, here in the United States. The other monument that was torn down, by the way, they took a tow truck and tore it down, was Lady Forward. Lady Forward is there because of women's suffrage. Wisconsin was the first State to pass suffrage back in the early 1900s, here in the United States of America. Those were torn down. Just yesterday, a woman, a social worker who teaches at a local school just outside Madison in Mount Horeb, she was charged with beating a State senator, a Democrat State senator. Her name is Samantha Hamer. Hopefully, she will be given justice. I want to emphasize to my colleagues on the left that if you think you are insulated from Antifa, which is supposedly a myth, you should really think about that, because them and other radicals, they will not spare violence on anyone. Their anarchy is meant to destroy our country. I would ask you, if you want to contact a former colleague of mine, State senator, Tim Carpenter, a Democrat, he will tell you he was beat to a pulp on that night at midnight when they were tearing down those statues. It is not a myth. So, Mr. Attorney General, I would ask Mr. Bernell Trammell, I don't know if our attorney general, Attorney General Kaul in Wisconsin, or the mayor of Milwaukee are going to pursue what appears to, perhaps, be a political execution. Are you familiar with that situation in Milwaukee? Attorney General Barr. You mean the shooting of that gentleman? Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Attorney General Barr. I've read about it. Mr. Tiffany. If the attorney general and other law enforcement in Wisconsin do not act, will the Federal Government study the situation and bring justice for Mr. Trammell and his family? Attorney General Barr. Yes, we'll certainly study that situation. Mr. Tiffany. This is not a myth. You are hearing it from all over the country and we are hearing all the time about Portland and Seattle. This happened in Madison, Wisconsin, also, where a mayor, a far-leftist mayor proudly carries that banner, sat on a street, actually not a street, a highway with protesters, and shut down traffic. Then State Street, one of the most iconic streets in the State of Wisconsin and Madison, was destroyed. I am not so sure that those businesses are going to get their businesses back. It is not a myth, folks. What is happening is real across our country and we need to stop the riots. These are not peaceful protests. These are riots that are happening, and we need to call an end to it. I hope you, Mr. Attorney General, will work towards that end. Thank you. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Scanlon? Ms. Scanlon. Attorney General Barr, I wanted to follow-up on some questions from one of my colleagues. You testified earlier that you have, at times, voted by mail; is that correct? Attorney General Barr. I remember once voting by mail. Ms. Scanlon. So, if public records show you voted by mail in 2012 and 2019, you will agree with that? Attorney General Barr. I can't really remember the details. Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Attorney General Barr. I think on one occasion I had to go to a station and vote before the election. Ms. Scanlon. Okay. You did it at least once, vote by mail. Attorney General Barr. I think in another one I voted by mail. Ms. Scanlon. I am reclaiming my time, sir. Attorney General Barr. Yeah. Ms. Scanlon. I raised this because in May of this year, 800 public health experts from across the Nation sent a letter urging Congress to, quote, ``prepare for a Presidential election by mail to allow Americans to vote from home and assure their health and safety.'' You are aware that health experts have emphasized that voting by mail is critical to protect public health in this upcoming election, correct? Attorney General Barr. When was that? Ms. Scanlon. In May of this year. If you are not aware of it, I can provide this to your staff. Attorney General Barr. Okay. I'd be interested in seeing it. Ms. Scanlon. Great. I have an extra copy for you. So, that public health advice is really important to citizens in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, because we have a large population of seniors who are at higher risk for the coronavirus. They shouldn't have to choose between risking their lives and exercising their right to vote. The problem that we are facing is that the President has repeatedly sought to cast out on the security of mail-in ballots, saying that the 2020 election could be rigged with, quote, ``millions of mail-in ballots printed by foreign countries,'' end quote. You, sir, have repeated this disinformation-- Attorney General Barr. Well, it's not disinformation-- Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Barr, I don't have a question for you yet. Here it comes, though. Last month you echoed the President's conspiracy theory when you suggested in at least 3 interviews that, quote, ``Foreign countries could manufacture counterfeit ballots,'' end quote, to influence the Presidential election. Correct? You did that in at least 3 interviews? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Ms. Scanlon. Okay. In fact, you have no evidence that foreign countries can successfully sway our elections with counterfeit ballots, do you? Attorney General Barr. No, I don't, but I have common sense. Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Well, and that is what you responded when you were directly challenged on that. You said, no, you didn't have evidence, but it was obvious. According to State election officials, your alleged concerns here are not obvious, but, in fact, are outrageous. Every State in the Union has absentee ballots. Two-thirds of the states allow for vote-by-mail for any reason. Five states, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Utah, vote entirely by mail and have done so for decades. Even the U.S. military uses mail-in ballots, doesn't it? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, isn't it true that after you suggested without evidence that foreign adversaries could sway our elections using counterfeit ballots, election experts and officials from around the country said that what you suggested was virtually impossible, preposterous, would never happen, and would be readily detected due to the multiple levels of security used with mail-in ballot systems. Attorney General Barr. They're not multiple levels of security used and I don't agree that it's a-- Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Well, so, you don't recall-- Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Reclaiming my time. Again, I am happy to supply you with the statements that were provided from around the country. Attorney General Barr. Yeah. Before Donald Trump raised concerns about it, every major publication-- Ms. Scanlon. Reclaiming my time, sir. In fact, there is no evidence that foreign countries can make counterfeit ballots and create a real threat to our election security. Are you aware that in May, the President tweeted, and I quote, ``mail-in voting will lead to massive fraud and abuse. It will also lead to the end of our great Republican party,'' end quote. Attorney General Barr. I was unaware of that tweet. Ms. Scanlon. Well, that tweet suggests, sir, that the President is spreading disinformation about mail-in ballots, because he is afraid that if more people vote, he and his party will lose. The fact, Mr. Barr, is that our foreign adversaries cannot actually influence our elections by submitting massive counterfeit ballots, but the FBI and our intelligence services have repeatedly warned that those adversaries are actively trying to sow mistrust of our election systems and by repeating disinformation about mail-in voting, you and the President are helping them. Just switching gears, you would agree-- Attorney General Barr. Well, I would like an opportunity to respond to that. Ms. Scanlon. You would agree that prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying fairly strongly with a political party, wouldn't you? Attorney General Barr. Who makes contributions? Ms. Scanlon. You said in 2017 that prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying fairly strongly with a political party, correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Yes. Ms. Scanlon. In fact, you and your wife have donated over $730,000 to Republican and conservative candidates, including donations of $58,000 to Republican senators and Senate candidates in the 4 months preceding your confirmation. That is correct, isn't it? Attorney General Barr. Are you surprised I'm a Republican? Ms. Scanlon. Is that correct that you made those donations? Attorney General Barr. Over a long period of time. Ms. Scanlon. Including just before. Attorney General Barr. That's accumulative of a long period of time, but basically, I've never hid the fact that I'm a Republican. Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Chair, I yield back and I would also-- Attorney General Barr. I was talking about career prosecutors, have generally, historically avoided making contributions was my view. Ms. Scanlon. There is no question before you. Sir, $130,000 is not-- Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady is expired. Ms. Garcia? Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Chair, I would like--I would seek unanimous consent to introduce the public health expert letter signed by 800 individuals, the Attorney General's repeated interviews in which you suggested that our elections could be undermined, the overwhelming reaction from election officials around the country, and the articles concerning his campaign donations. Thank you. Chair Nadler. Without objection, the articles will be entered into the record. [The information follows:] MS. SCANLON FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Nadler. Ms. Garcia? Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Barr, your Department released Paul Manafort, the President's former campaign manager, early from prison in May out of concern for the Coronavirus. On March 26th and April 3rd, your Department released guidelines, criteria by which, setting priorities by which people would be released early. By your own Department's admission, Manafort did not meet that criteria. Since the start of this pandemic, we have repeatedly urged you to use your authority to protect vulnerable populations in prisons and, instead, you released the President's former campaign manager. Sir, do you know how many federal inmates have tested positive for COVID-19 as of today? Attorney General Barr. Yeah, I have that number. Ms. Garcia. Quickly, sir, because the clock ticks. Attorney General Barr. Well-- Ms. Garcia. Well, we have a slide, if they will bring it up, that shows us that 10,000 inmates have tested positive and over 1,000 staff have tested positive. Do you know how many have died? Attorney General Barr. About a hundred, it's almost a hundred, I think. Ms. Garcia. That is right. It is about 99 inmates have died and, yet only 5 percent have been released under your guidelines. Attorney General Barr. Seven thousand-- Ms. Garcia. You stated in May that you were taking, quote, ``every measure we can to protect federal inmates.'' The numbers, however, tell a different story, as do your actions. Despite releasing Manafort, your lawyers continue to argue against the release of prisoners. In April, vulnerable prisoners who suffer from serious at-risk health conditions like chronic asthma, heart disease, and kidney disease, filed a lawsuit for early release in Ohio. These prisoners were being, quote, ``overcrowded in like cattle, because prisons were not able to social-distance them.'' Five hundred and fifty prisoners sought release, yet your own Department processed only 7 applications and denied them all, yet, you had time to process Manafort's application. Attorney General Barr. I didn't process Manafort's application. Ms. Garcia. Well, your Department did, sir. Apparently, not these vulnerable Americans, living at grave risk; in fact, in a series of rulings in April and May, an Ohio District Court ordered that your Department, quote, ``act with urgency and to,'' quote, ``move inmates out, due to continued risk of harm to prisoners and to government staff.'' Sir, your Department challenged that court order, did it not? Attorney General Barr. I'm not familiar with that. Ms. Garcia. Well, you all did. You did not help move these inmates out, as ordered; in fact, you tried to block the District Court's order, however, the Supreme Court on May 26th, rejected your Department's requests. Sir, 9 prisoners had died, and it has been 2 months since the Supreme Court's order. Do you even know today how many of those prisoners have been released or how many more have died? Attorney General Barr. No, I don't. We had a hundred, we started out this with 170,000 prisoners, so we've lost-- Ms. Garcia. Well, sir I just need you to try to explain to me and to America how is it that the former campaign manager of the President of the United States did not meet the, who did not meet the priority criteria, got released, even though your own Department admitted he didn't meet the guidelines, but all these other folks were not. If it was deadly enough of a virus that you needed to protect the former campaign manager, why not all these Americans who also have vulnerable, are vulnerable and have at- risk conditions? Mr. Barr, the contrary says it all, and it is not just in Ohio, in fact, in my own home State in Texas, a federal prison housing women with mental and medical health issues just confirmed last week that of the 1,357 prisoners, over 500 tested positive for COVID. One prisoner recounted, we are like a whole bunch of hamsters in a cage chasing our own tails and yet none have been released. Mr. Barr, have you seen those statistics, yes or no? Attorney General Barr. The-- Ms. Garcia. Well, if you can-- Attorney General Barr. I put out guidelines, general guidelines to propel-- Ms. Garcia. Sir, you have not released anyone. Attorney General Barr. I put out general guidelines-- Ms. Garcia. One of those prisoners is a mother, Andrea Circle Bear, who had to give birth on a ventilator in that facility because your Department prioritizes releasing Paul Manafort instead of vulnerable Americans. A few weeks after this photo, Ms. Bear died, along with 2 other women housed in this facility from COVID-19. Sir, you could be saving lives by reducing the prison population, yet you have blatantly abandoned your duty to these women. You have shamelessly abandoned your oath of office to protect all Americans impartially, because you have prioritized giving special favors to the President's friends. This is not equal justice under the law. It is not the law that you and I both learned in law school. It is too simple systems of justice; one for the President's friends and one for everyone else and it is wrong. Attorney General Barr. The director of the BOP-- Ms. Garcia. It is flat wrong. Thank you, and I yield back. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady-- Attorney General Barr. Yeah, the director of the BOP testified under oath that no one from Justice Department was involved. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Neguse? Mr. Jordan. The gentleman has not been given an opportunity to respond and that is a consistent problem. Chair Nadler. Mr. Neguse is recognized. Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. I want to go through a couple of your prior statements. On April 19th, or excuse me, April 18th of 2019, you stated, quote, ``that the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation.'' You are aware of that? Attorney General Barr. Uh-huh. Mr. Neguse. Today, yes or no, Mr. Barr, under the penalty of perjury, do you testify that statement was true at the time that you made it? Attorney General Barr. I thought it to be true at the time that I made it. Mr. Neguse. On-- Attorney General Barr. Why isn't it true? Mr. Neguse. I will get to that, Mr. Barr. Attorney General Barr. I mean, does it have to do with quibbling over-- Mr. Neguse. Mr. Barr, I will get to that. Reclaiming my time. You answered the question. Attorney General Barr. Okay. Mr. Neguse. I have another question for you. On June 19th of 2020-- Attorney General Barr. Actually, I need to answer that question. Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General, you did answer the question. I will give you an opportunity-- Attorney General Barr. No, you said under penalty of perjury. I'm going to answer the damn question, okay. Mr. Neguse. You said-- Attorney General Barr. And-- Mr. Neguse. The answer was yes, is what you said. Attorney General Barr. Well, I think what I was referring to, and I'd have to see the context of it, was the supplying of documents. Mr. Neguse. Are you saying no? No, Mr. Attorney General, the statement was not limited to the supply of documents. You stated at a press-- Attorney General Barr. I think that's what-- Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General, reclaiming my time-- Attorney General Barr. --I think that's what I was talking about. Mr. Neguse. Reclaiming my time. You stated in a press conference-- Attorney General Barr. I think that's what I was talking about. Mr. Neguse. --on April 19th of 2019 that the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation. You knew when you made that statement that the President had not agreed to be interviewed by the special counsel. Now, on June 18th-- Attorney General Barr. I think I subsequently said-- Mr. Neguse. --of this year, Mr. Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. --that I was referring to-- Mr. Neguse. --on June 18th-- Attorney General Barr. --the production of documents. Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General, on June 18th of this year, the Department of Justice issued a statement saying that Mr. Berman, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, had, quote, ``stepped down.'' You are aware of that statement being released by the Department, correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Mr. Neguse. Do you testify today that the statement was true at the time that the Department issued it? Attorney General Barr. He may not have known it, but he was stepping down. Mr. Neguse. He may not have known that he was stepping down, that is your testimony today? Attorney General Barr. He was being removed. Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General, the statement did not say that he was being removed. It did not say that he was being fired. It said that he was stepping down and-- Attorney General Barr. I was-- Mr. Neguse. --and, apparently, your testimony today is that was, in fact, accurate when Mr. Berman has testified under oath to this Committee that it, in fact, was not. Now, I want to talk about a separate process-- Attorney General Barr. No. No. He was removed-- Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. He was removed-- Mr. Neguse. I understand-- Attorney General Barr. --and I wanted an opportunity-- Mr. Neguse. I understand-- Attorney General Barr. --to offer him another job-- Mr. Neguse. I understand your rationalization-- Attorney General Barr. --and talked to him the next day-- Mr. Neguse. --for your answer, but the American people-- Attorney General Barr. It's not a rationalization. Mr. Neguse. --will let your answer speak for itself. Now, Mr. Attorney General, earlier this year, President Trump stated that he had planned to make what he described as Vice President's, quote, ``Ukraine dealings an issue on the campaign trail.'' Earlier this year on February 10th, you stated that you had set up a, quote, ``intake process for submission of information,'' excuse me, ``intake process,'' end quote, for submission of information relating to the Ukraine to the Justice Department and that included, quote, these are your words, ``anything Mr. Giuliani might provide.'' Do you recall making those comments? Attorney General Barr. Something along those lines. Mr. Neguse. You concede there isn't anything standard about the attorney general creating a special process for information related to advancing-- Attorney General Barr. I disagree. Mr. Neguse. You disagree? Attorney General Barr. I also made it clear that is a vetting process that's available to anybody. Mr. Neguse. Is that right? Which U.S. Attorney have you assigned to receive information from Vice-President Biden's personal lawyers regarding President Trump? Attorney General Barr. Well, maybe if they had vetted the dossier-- Mr. Neguse. There is no-- Attorney General Barr. --maybe if they had vetted the dossier, we wouldn't have-- Mr. Neguse. There is no U.S. Attorney-- Attorney General Barr. --the whole-- Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General, there is no U.S. Attorney, of course, that you have appointed to do that because-- Attorney General Barr. What are you talking about? Mr. Neguse. --what you have done with respect to this process is unprecedented. Now-- Attorney General Barr. It was cautionary so we do not pollute the criminal investigative process with Ukrainian disinformation. Mr. Neguse. I will give you an opportunity to explain this intake process. My understanding is that you have directed-- Attorney General Barr. You are going to give me an opportunity? Mr. Neguse. I plan, I intend to right now. Attorney General Barr. Okay. Mr. Neguse. The Eastern District of New York, the U.S. Attorney responsible for that district, my understanding is that you have asked that U.S. Attorney to be responsible for the intake process; is that right? Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Neguse. That is wrong? The U.S. Attorney-- Attorney General Barr. The U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District was given oversight of all Ukrainian-related cases, any new cases involving Ukraine. Mr. Neguse. Correct. Attorney General Barr. We face a problem with Ukraine, which is unreliable information coming in. Mr. Neguse. I appreciate-- Attorney General Barr. There's a lot of corruption there. It's a hall of mirrors-- Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General, I-- Attorney General Barr. --and I wanted to make sure that before we got into criminal proceedings, and this was to everyone's benefit, particularly Vice-President Biden-- Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. --that the information was scrubbed-- Mr. Neguse. I appreciate you noting that-- Attorney General Barr. --in conjunction with the intelligence community. Mr. Neguse. --and that is consistent with the memo that you issued, which said, ``any and all new matters relating to Ukraine shall be directed exclusively to the Eastern District of New York for investigation and appropriate handling,'' just as you have described right now. Now, of course, the U.S. Attorney responsible in the Eastern District of New York was recently changed. My understanding is a few weeks ago, you announced that Seth DuCharme would be taking over to replace Rich Donoghue. Mr. DuCharme, prior to-- Attorney General Barr. Pittsburgh is in charge of the vetting. Mr. Neguse. Mr. Attorney General, prior to taking this position, Mr. DuCharme worked at main Department of Justice; is that correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes, he was a counselor to me and then he was the principal assistant deputy attorney general. Mr. Neguse. He was a counselor. That is right. Rather having the acting U.S. Attorney, the deputy U.S. Attorney, rather, in that district to serve-- Attorney General Barr. They wanted to swap jobs. Mr. Neguse. --you now have appointed your prior counsel to oversee that very same process. With that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chair. Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. McBath? Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, before we go to Ms. McBath, could I enter a couple of documents under unanimous, ask for unanimous consent to enter 4 documents: The 2 memos that I referred to setting the guidelines for who gets released; a Washington Post article about Paul Manafort's release; and a testimony from the Council of Prison Locals C-33 for the record. Chair Nadler. Without objection. [The information follows:] MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Nadler. Ms. McBath is now recognized. Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by thanking you, Attorney General Barr for joining us today and for the work that the committed public servants in your department are doing to keep our country safe. Sir, just a few months ago in May, you said that you would be taking the President's position in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act. When asked if you will still take that position even if it means, and I quote, ``stripping millions of Americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic,'' you stated that the case would not be argued until October and that the President expects to fix and replace ObamaCare with a better system. Attorney General Barr, let's be very, very clear. As public health officials and data have shown us, this pandemic is simply not going away. Just last week, it was reported that one hospital was planning to send Coronavirus patients home to die due to limited resources to treat them. So, we are still facing an extremely critical and extremely serious situation. Even if you expect the President to figure out a new plan by October, the President has not yet put in place another system, nor is there any guarantee that he will do so by October as you ``expect.'' So, when you say you expect the President to figure out a new plan, you are taking a risk with millions of Americans' lives. You are risking the lives of millions, people who will not be covered for preexisting conditions if the Supreme Court agrees with your position. Civil servants in your own Department have disagreed with you on this matter. In fact, I am introducing a statement by one of the lead attorneys on the ACA case, Joel McElvain, who resigned in protest when your Department refused to defend the law as it is required. [The information follows:] ? MS. McBATH FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. McBath. In my district, the 6th District of Georgia, congressional district, there are over 300,000 people that have preexisting conditions, and I, sir, am one of them, a two-time breast cancer survivor. Our State is continuing to battle hard against a resurgence in COVID-19 cases. So, I am asking you, sir, not to gamble with American lives, not to gamble with my life. I would like you to confirm that if the President has no other plan in place by October, you will reverse course and drop your position that, I quote you directly, ``The entire ACA must fall.'' Attorney General Barr. I have two children who are cancer survivors, so I feel very strongly about this issue as a matter of policy, and I believe that the President has made clear that he will ensure that there will-- Ms. McBath. Sir, please answer my question. Will you stop playing politics with Americans' healthcare in the middle of a pandemic? Will you reverse your course-- Attorney General Barr. I am not playing politics. I am the lawyer. I am not in charge of healthcare policy. Ms. McBath. Will you reverse your course and make sure that millions of Americans like me that depend on healthcare and treatment to stay alive, will you reverse your course to make sure that we have the ability to be able to live in this country freely with quality healthcare? Attorney General Barr. People will have healthcare protection, and it will be accomplished even if I lose. Ms. McBath. Okay. Sir, I take that as a no. Attorney General Barr. If the government loses the case-- Ms. McBath. I take that as a no. Attorney General Barr. If the Supreme Court strikes it down, then I think-- Ms. McBath. I take this as a no. Sir, I want to go on-- Attorney General Barr. No, based on history, there will be-- Ms. McBath. Sir, I would like to go on. I would like to briefly mention my concerns relating to gun violence because that is actually how I got here to Washington. Attorney General Barr. I am sorry. Relating to what? What? Ms. McBath. I want to briefly go on to another concern that I have relating to gun violence. Attorney General Barr. Okay. Ms. McBath. That is actually how I got here. Attorney General Barr. Okay. Ms. McBath. During the coronavirus outbreak, the Nation has seen a dramatic increase in firearm sales and skyrocketing numbers of sales blocked by failed background checks. In March alone, the NICS background check system blocked 23,000 attempted sales. In other words, in 1 month there were 23,000 attempts to get a firearm by a person who was not allowed to possess one under our current law. It is a Federal crime for anyone to lie in an attempt to get a firearm, which is what I suspect most people tried to do. I would like to know from you, how many of these March blocked sales were investigated? Attorney General Barr. I sent out a directive that we should start prosecuting, to the extent we can, these lie and try cases. Previously we hadn't really been pursuing them. Ms. McBath. Okay. So, I take that as a no. I have just one more thing to say. Sir, my time is up. Attorney General Barr. No. Well, I am saying we are pursuing those cases. Ms. McBath. My time is up. I take that as a no. Unfortunately, this fits a larger pattern of your Administration, neglecting the health and safety of Americans. From healthcare to gun violence, this Administration is failing to keep my constituents and people all over the country healthy and safe. I demand better. Americans demand better. I want you to provide the answers that you are either unwilling to provide us or don't have answers to to this Committee because these are relevant questions, and we need to have answers from you. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady-- Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair-- Chair Nadler. The gentlelady-- Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, I have got a question. Chair Nadler. For what purpose does the gentleman seek-- Mr. Jordan. For months, you have tried to get the Attorney General to come. He is here. Why don't you let him speak? Why don't you let him answer the questions? Chair Nadler. The gentleman is not recognized. Mr. Jordan. Time after time. If you want the Attorney General to come at least let him answer the questions and the accusations made against him. Chair Nadler. The gentleman's rudeness is not recognized. Mr. Jordan. Rudeness? Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The rudeness is on the other side. Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton-- Mr. Jordan. Time after time, you refuse to let the Attorney General of the United States answer the questions posed to him. Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton is recognized. Mr. Jordan. Well, maybe the last few witnesses will actually let the Attorney General speak. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Attorney General? Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton is recognized. Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for being here. Since the passing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, those who have sought to suppress the minority vote conceal their intentions. The suppressors suggest that they are really out to advance some altruistic goals, such as election security, but history has proven that those allegations and those rationalizations were lies designed only to fend off legal challenges. It was a dirty little secret, and those who aim to suppress the minority vote never dared to say it out loud. Not Donald Trump. He didn't even try to keep it a secret. He just blurted it out. He said he will lose the 2020 election if more Americans are able to vote. That is one reason why this President needed a fixer at the Department of Justice. From letting Russia off the hook to rewarding Roger Stone, Mr. Barr, you have proven not only very willing, but I have to admit, very able. More than a year ago, this Committee heard testimony about a resurgence of discriminatory voting practices, certain States making it more difficult to vote. These practices include unnecessarily strict photo ID requirements and the abuse of signature match requirements to reject absentee ballots. Despite that, your Department has a lax approach to enforcing Voting Rights Act. During your tenure, you filed just one case to do so, but the DOJ has done nothing to block the suppression practice we heard about over a year ago before this committee. To your credit, Mr. Barr, you warned us. You told the New York Times Magazine earlier this spring that the DOJ's role in protecting the right to vote would be limited this year, and that it would be up to the States to police themselves. Isn't that right? Yes or no. Attorney General Barr. I don't recall saying that, but if you say it is in the article. Mr. Stanton. It is in the New York Times article from just last month. In that same news story, you said it would be up to the voters to referee the election. Is that right? Yes or no. Attorney General Barr. I don't remember the context of that, frankly. Was I talking about foreign influence? Mr. Stanton. No, sir. I will submit it for the record. You will have a chance to review it and submit additional testimony if you desire to. Mr. Stanton. Some day when we have more time, you will have to explain to me how a person whose right to vote is denied by a discriminatory practice can referee an election. Attorney General Barr. That doesn't sound-- Mr. Stanton. I digress. It troubles me that you have not been consistent in your approach. As the Attorney General, you have stood down on discrimination and allowed States to make it harder to vote, but you have used the DOJ as a sword when attempts have been made to make it easier to vote. Voting right advocates in South Carolina and Alabama sought to prevent Americans from choosing between voting and risking their health by making it easier and safer to complete an absentee ballot during the pandemic, but your DOJ intervened to try to block that accommodation. Mr. Barr, did you discuss either of those cases with the President? Yes or no. Attorney General Barr. No. Mr. Stanton. The American people-- Attorney General Barr. I don't even know. What two cases are you talking about? Mr. Stanton. Cases in which-- Attorney General Barr. Tell me the names of the cases. Mr. Stanton. I don't have the names of the cases. Attorney General Barr. Where were they? Mr. Stanton. South Carolina and Alabama. You will have a chance to comment after your testimony is done here today. The American people have good reason to believe that you will continue to use your authority to carry out the President's wishes to suppress the vote, and there are fears that you and the President are laying the foundation to interfere with the upcoming election, specifically with vote by mail, as my colleagues have previously noted, because both of you have advanced false conspiracy theories about mail-in voting. I hope we can put some of those fears to rest here today. Mr. Barr, can you commit to the American people that you will not interfere with the decisions of State and local authorities to use vote by mail and absentee ballots in the 2020 elections? That is a yes or no question. Attorney General Barr. Well, I think the Federal Government has very limited ability to get involved in this, but I am not going to give up whatever ability we have to ensure the integrity of the election. My observation was simply that it would inject some uncertainty into the election process, and it opens the potential of fraud. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Barr, I have got limited time-- Attorney General Barr. I think the integrity of our elections is very important. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Barr, the President has suggested that only votes counted on Election Day should be what matters, meaning that if a voter casts a legal ballot on or before Election Day, but that ballot is not counted on Election Day, it shouldn't count at all. So, I want to ask you again about your commitment to ensuring that every vote is counted. If in this upcoming November election, the President asks you to intervene and try to stop States from counting legal ballots after Election Day, will you do the right thing and refuse? Yes or no. Attorney General Barr. I will follow the law. Mr. Stanton. You won't say no, sir? Attorney General Barr. I will follow the law. Mr. Stanton. It is very disappointing. Attorney General Barr. Well, if a State has a law that says it has to be cast on Election Day, that is the law. That will be enforced. Mr. Stanton. Will you commit to making sure the Department of Justice does not get involved in a contested election? Yes or no. Attorney General Barr. I will follow the law. Mr. Stanton. It is so disappointing that we can't get a clear answer on that. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the following items: An item from The Guardian magazine, ``An Embarrassment: Trump's Justice Department Goes Quiet on Voting Rights.'' Second, New York Times Magazine, ``William Barr's State of Emergency.'' Finally, from the Washington Post, ``Trump's Assault on Election Integrity Forces Question: What Would Happen if He Refused to Accept the Loss?'' Chair Nadler. Without objection, the material will be-- Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, just for the record-- Chair Nadler. Without objection, the material-- Mr. Jordan. --a member of Judiciary Committee, following the law-- Chair Nadler. Without objection-- Mr. Jordan. Following the law should be something a member of Judiciary Committee knows. Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. Mr. Jordan. It is pretty darn clear. Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. Without objection, the material will be entered into the record. [The information follows:] MR. STANTON FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Nadler. Ms. Dean is recognized. Ms. Dean. Good afternoon. Attorney General Barr. Sorry. Mr. Chair, could we take a 5- minute break? Chair Nadler. Ms. Dean is recognized. Attorney General Barr. Could we take a 5-minute break, Mr. Chair? Chair Nadler. No. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is a common courtesy, Mr. Chair, of every witness. Mr. Jordan. This is-- Attorney General Barr. I waited an hour for you this morning. I haven't had lunch. I would like to take a 5-minute break. Chair Nadler. Mr. Attorney General, we are almost finished. We are going to be finished in a few minutes. We can certainly take a break, but-- Attorney General Barr. You are a real class act. Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Chair Nadler. Yes, after this, if you still want one, we will have a break. Mr. Jordan. No, he wants a break now. Chair Nadler. Do you want it now? Fine. The Committee-- Mr. Jordan. You just mentioned rudeness. I think we are seeing it on display. Chair Nadler. The Committee will stand-- Mr. Jordan. Let's let the Attorney General have a break. Chair Nadler. The Committee will stand in recess now. Attorney General Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [Recess.] Chair Nadler. The Committee will reconvene. Ms. Dean is recognized. Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Attorney General Barr. I would like to return and describe or discuss some different issues regarding June 1st and Lafayette Square where, as you know, peaceful protesters had gathered over days and hours to discuss civil rights, to discuss the heinous murder of George Floyd, and to call for equality and justice. When asked about the use of force displayed in the video against the protesters at Lafayette Square, you stated that your attitude was ``Get it done.'' Let's look at what you got done. [Chart.] Ms. Dean. If you will take a look at the timeline we have compiled, we see that you were spotted in Lafayette Square at 6:10 p.m. that Monday evening. The President was scheduled to speak in the Rose Garden at 6:15 p.m. The Park Police began to disperse protesters at roughly 6:33 p.m. President Trump started his speech at 6:43 p.m. and finished at 6:50 p.m. So, by 7:01 p.m., when the President was ready to walk across the street to take a photo in front of St. John's Church, the square was cleared and ready for him to go. Am I correct? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Ms. Dean. The timing is clear. Multiple local officials also confirmed the point of clearing the square. One safety official said it was as if the Park Police's plan to move the perimeter had been ``hurried up'' when the President needed to walk to the church. Just today, Congress heard testimony from Adam DeMarco, a National Guard officer deployed at Lafayette Square, confirming that he expected the square to be cleared after the curfew, after 7:00 p.m. Attorney General Barr. I am sorry. Who was that? Ms. Dean. Adam DeMarco, National Guard. In the afternoon-- Attorney General Barr. Well-- Ms. Dean. I didn't have a question for you, sir. In the afternoon, you told us that you learned of the President's interest in crossing the square to go to the church. Is it your opinion, Mr. Barr, that clearing protesters from Lafayette Square, which local officials were told to hurry up moments before the President's photo op with a borrowed Bible in front of a church, was coincidence? Is this timing coincidence? Attorney General Barr. I believe it is, yes. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Is that what you are saying? Ms. Dean. I am familiar with the Latin. In a related matter, when asked about the use of pepper bombs-- Attorney General Barr. It wasn't a coincidence in this setting, if you would permit me, Congresswoman, okay? As I said, I used the analogy of MacArthur at Leyte Gulf, okay? Ms. Dean. We heard that. Thank you. Attorney General Barr. Yeah? Okay. Ms. Dean. Mr. Attorney General-- Attorney General Barr. He couldn't have walked-- Ms. Dean. You said coincidence. Fine. We will assume that that was all coincidence. In a related matter, let me ask you about-- Attorney General Barr. I have already explained that it had been planned all day. Ms. Dean. Mr. Attorney General the time is mine. Attorney General Barr. Mm-hmm. Ms. Dean. We have waited a long time for you to come here. The time is mine. Attorney General Barr. You have waited to talk to me like this? You didn't need to wait so long. Ms. Dean. When asked about the use of pepper bombs fired at Americans in Lafayette Square, you said, ``No, there were no chemical irritants.'' Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. It is not chemical. Attorney General Barr. Well, everything is chemical. I was referring to a dichotomy-- Ms. Dean. Actually-- Attorney General Barr. A dichotomy in these kinds of things between chemical compounds and naturally-occurring substances. Ms. Dean. Mr. Attorney General, reclaiming my time, there are rules by which we operate here. I would ask you to respect them. Take a look at the screen. I have placed on this screen for reference, as you are aware, how your Department describes PepperBalls used on Americans in Lafayette Square. A 2009 Justice report noted that ``The PepperBall system's accuracy and accompanying blunt trauma impact made it an ideal chemical dispensing system.'' So, while you in a quote said ``it is not chemical,'' you today confirm it is chemical, and you are aware of your Department's policy, are you not? Attorney General Barr. What policy? Ms. Dean. The one I just provided to you. Attorney General Barr. What does it say? What is the policy? Ms. Dean. Well, I showed it to you. Finally, whether or not you authorized it at the time. Perhaps you weren't listening. Attorney General Barr. I didn't see the policy. What was the policy in there? Ms. Dean. Clearly you weren't listening. Fine. Whether or not you authorized the use of PepperBalls, what-- Attorney General Barr. The-- Ms. Dean. I did not ask you a question yet, sir. I ask you to please refrain from interrupting me. We watched horrifying videos played across the news and social media showing that these chemical irritants were used on protesters. So, yes or no, and this is a yes or no, sir, have you begun an investigation of the use of excessive force in Lafayette Square? Attorney General Barr. I think the IG is looking at everything related to, the-- Ms. Dean. So, the answer is, yes, you are investigating. Attorney General Barr. The IG is investigating it. Ms. Dean. Okay. Well, we will hope that he does not get fired. Tragically, what happened in Lafayette Square is no longer an isolated incident. Use of chemical irritants has been used in more than 90 cities. My colleague showed you the video of the Navy vet being pepper sprayed and beaten, his bones broken. Whether or not you thought this was appropriate at the time, have you now called for law enforcement to stop using these chemical irritants on protesters? Yes or no. Attorney General Barr. Pepper spray? Ms. Dean. Yes. Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Dean. No? Attorney General Barr. I think it is a very important non- lethal option. Ms. Dean. For protesters. Attorney General Barr. No, for rioters. Ms. Dean. Sir, that was my question, for protestors. Attorney General Barr. No, for rioters. Ms. Dean. Yes. Sir, America was founded on the principles of free speech. Attorney General Barr. When people resist law enforcement, they are not peaceful. Ms. Dean. Reclaiming my time. I am surprised at your lack of respect for a member of Congress. Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell? Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Mr. Barr, good afternoon. I am glad that you mentioned Latin America a little bit earlier. Many of my constituents that I represent in Florida fled to America from countries that use deadly force to stifle speech, and they used armed forces to suppress dissenting voices. They cherish our Constitution, as other Americans have done for generations, because of the incredible freedoms and rights that being an American citizen gives to all of us. It is extremely personal to me because you probably know that my roots are in Ecuador, but I live by the American Constitution. It is true that those who aren't fortunate enough to always have these rights and freedoms sometimes cherish them even more than those who have always had them. When they see photos from Portland, they don't see the American ideal or the America that they know. They actually see and are reminded of what they left behind. You would agree with me on that? [No response.] Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Are you listening, Mr. Barr? Attorney General Barr. Well, I wasn't sure-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Take a look at this-- Attorney General Barr. Who is the subject of that last sentence? Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Just, when you see-- Attorney General Barr. Who honor-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Look at these videos for 1 second. We have seen violence in Venezuela at the hands of Maduro. Firing teargas at protesters and using brutal tactics to crush demonstrations, that is what we see from dictators on both the left and the right. It is hard to distinguish these photos from those events and from the videos that we have seen by U.S. Federal police in Portland teargassing and breaking the bones of a peacefully protesting U.S. Navy veteran. Very similar. So, Mr. Barr, how do you restore the confidence of my constituents in the values of this country when every night on television, they are seeing these images of violence used against the peaceful protesters? We all denounce violence. How do you restore the trust in our democracy? Attorney General Barr. I think that the force is being deployed against rioters or in situations where protesters are not following police directions. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Most of the protests have been peaceful, Attorney General Barr. You know that. Attorney General Barr. I don't know what that-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. You are just using language for political purposes just like my colleagues across the aisle. Attorney General Barr. No, I don't know what it means. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Let me just go now to one of the most important topics facing our Nation right now: Healthcare. In my district, we have close to 1,000 people that get their health insurance through the ACA. Nineteen thousand of them are living with serious preexisting conditions, and yet you are working to strip their healthcare at the worst possible moment when the coronavirus is killing thousands of people in my State. Attorney General Barr. They will not be stripped of their health-care. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. In Miami-Dade County and in Monroe Counties, counties that I represent, do you know how many people have died from COVID-19? Attorney General Barr. No, I don't. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. A thousand four hundred and ten people. Attorney General Barr. Mm-hmm. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. You were at the White House on March 23rd when President Trump said Governor DeSantis was doing an incredible job. Do you agree that Governor DeSantis is doing an incredible job? Attorney General Barr. Well, I have no reason not to believe that. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Well, Florida now has more cases than in China, and, in fact-- Attorney General Barr. Well, did Cuomo do an incredible job in New York? Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. --we have in Florida unfortunately, and I am not proud to say this. In Florida, we have more cases than most countries combined around the world, so, no, he is not doing an incredible job. You pushed States to open too soon. You threatened States with lawsuits if they said-- Attorney General Barr. I didn't ask States to open. I didn't ask States to open. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. You threatened with lawsuits for those States that wanted to have stay-at-home orders, Mr. Barr. Attorney General Barr. For church. For things like church. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. We have the facts. I am going by the facts. Attorney General Barr. Yeah, I am just saying-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Now the country, the United States of America, has more than 4.3 million COVID cases alone. You, Mr. Barr, and President Trump working together are letting my constituents down, and it is something that you are going to have to live with. What am I supposed to say to my constituents when they ask me if the government has done everything in its power to protect their loved ones from dying? You tell me, Mr. Barr, what am I supposed to tell them? Attorney General Barr. I would tell them that managing this kind of thing requires a lot of difficult choices and weighing different consequences. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I am not going to lie. Attorney General Barr. That is-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I am not going to lie to my constituents. Attorney General Barr. That is left-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I am going to tell them that-- Attorney General Barr. In our system of government, that is left to the governors. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. --President Donald Trump and the Attorney General, working together-- Attorney General Barr. The governors-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. --are not following health guidelines. They are letting Americans die needlessly-- Mr. Jordan. No, they are not. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. --because of political reasons. That is what I will tell them, Mr. Barr. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You know, Mr. Chair-- Attorney General Barr. In our system-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, and one last question, if I can-- Attorney General Barr. In our system-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Under oath, do you commit to not releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the November election? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. You don't commit to that. Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. So, you won't go by Department of Justice policy that-- Attorney General Barr. I know what Justice Department policy-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. --that you won't interfere in any political investigations before the November election? Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady-- Attorney General Barr. We are not going to interfere. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair-- Attorney General Barr. In fact, I have made it clear I am not going to tolerate-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Under oath, you are saying that you do not commit to not releasing a report by Durham. Attorney General Barr. Any report will be, in my judgment, not one that is covered by the policy and would disrupt the election. Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady-- Attorney General Barr. I have already made it clear that-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. You would go against your own Department of Justice policy, Mr. Barr? Attorney General Barr. Why don't you tell me what that policy is? Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Oh, I have it right here. Attorney General Barr. Well, actually-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Do you want me to repeat it for you? Attorney General Barr. No, I know what the policy is. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Yeah. Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady-- Attorney General Barr. Yeah. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair-- Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Jordan. Go ahead. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady-- Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, point of order. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman seek-- Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is it permissible for a member of this Committee to accuse the sitting Attorney General of the United States of murder, because that is what we just heard? Those words need to be struck from this record. This is outrageous. Chair Nadler. The member controls the time. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair-- Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. To say whatever, they want? What about rules of decorum, Mr. Chair? Chair Nadler. Ms. Escobar-- Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, I actually have a clarification. Mr. Chair-- Chair Nadler. Ms. Escobar-- Mr. Jordan. No, this-- Chair Nadler. Ms. Escobar is recognized. Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, the video played by the previous member, was that a video of things that happened in the United States or in Venezuela? I just want a clarification. What was the video? Chair Nadler. The gentleman is not stating a cognizable point of order. Ms. Escobar is recognized. Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Barr, the Administration, against the constitutional text, historical precedent, and DOJ's own memo, is trying to exclude undocumented persons from the Census, an action that harms American lives, and immigrant communities, and American communities. Here is an example. Many American children are living with an undocumented parent or relative. This change in the Census means that those children, American children, would receive less money for programs like the National School Lunch Program, Head Start, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. A simple yes or no, please, Mr. Barr. Are you comfortable with the decision that would punish American children and immigrant communities in this way? Attorney General Barr. I don't make the policy. I provide legal advice on legal issues. Ms. Escobar. Okay. Attorney General Barr. So, both to this issue and the issue of the ACA the question presented to the Department is the law. Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Barr. Reclaiming my time, sir. Mr. Barr, a simple yes or no. Does the Constitution say that only citizens should be counted in the Census? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Escobar. Correct. It does not. In fact, the framers of the Fourteenth amendment explicitly confronted this question, and it provides that persons in each State be counted. I will move on. Among many other-- Attorney General Barr. Well, they wouldn't be confronted with it because there were no illegal aliens at the time. Ms. Escobar. Sir, there is no question for you yet. Among many other things, I am alarmed by your Department's refusal to comply with and implement key Supreme Court rulings. One June 18th of this year, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that the Trump Administration's attempt to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious and required the Administration to process new DACA applications. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, zero DACA applications have been processed. That is not the only Supreme Court decision your Administration has ignored. In 2017, your Department issued a memo stating that transgender workers were not protected by civil rights laws. The Supreme Court struck that down, too. Attorney General Barr. No, I am sorry. Ms. Escobar. In both the DACA-- Attorney General Barr. What we had said was the 1964 Act-- Ms. Escobar. Sir, there is no question for you yet. Excuse me. Attorney General Barr. --did not extend to-- Ms. Escobar. Reclaiming my time, sir. In both the DACA and transgender decisions, your Department has yet to comply. Yes or no, will the Department implement the Supreme Court's DACA and transgender rulings? Attorney General Barr. I guess. I think we are. Ms. Escobar. The DACA ruling? Attorney General Barr. Yes. Ms. Escobar. You are now processing DACA applications? Attorney General Barr. I think what we are trying to do now is restore the administrative process. Ms. Escobar. Sir-- Attorney General Barr. I think DHS has put out a rule-- Ms. Escobar. I reclaim my time. Attorney General Barr. I think DHS put out a rule today. At least that is what I was told. Ms. Escobar. Thank you, sir. Sir, earlier, you testified that you discussed the President's reelection campaign with him. Does the President tell you what he thinks the winning issues for him would be in his reelection? Attorney General Barr. I am not going to discuss my discussions with the President. Ms. Escobar. I am not asking you divulge anything private or classified. Attorney General Barr. Well, I think my discussions with the President are confidential. Ms. Escobar. Okay. Have you and the President-- Attorney General Barr. It shouldn't surprise you in an election year the topic of the election comes up. Ms. Escobar. Well, it surprises me that the DOJ has become so politicized. That is what surprises me. Sir, have you and the President ever discussed the fact that anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ policies excite his base? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Escobar. You have never had that conversation? Attorney General Barr. No. Ms. Escobar. He has never told you that his anti-immigrant policies, his anti-LGBTQ policies gin up his base? Attorney General Barr. I haven't discussed that with him, but I assume with immigration, I think a lot of his base does care about immigration policy. Ms. Escobar. Does that motivate some of the work that you do? Attorney General Barr. Like what work? Ms. Escobar. Well, for example, your enthusiasm for-- Attorney General Barr. That position on transgender that you are talking about was taken before I arrived in that litigation, I believe. Ms. Escobar. You can reverse it any day. My question was whether you-- Attorney General Barr. No, it was a legal question as to whether the 1964 Act extended to transgender. I think it was-- Ms. Escobar. I am running out of time, sir. One more question. You keep telling us that you are not aware of the President's tweets. Are you aware that your Department has stated that the President's tweets are official White House statements? Attorney General Barr. No, I wasn't. Ms. Escobar. Okay. So, it goes back to 2017. Attorney General Barr. I don't pay attention to the tweets unless they are brought to my attention. Ms. Escobar. Okay. Mr. Barr, thank you so much for being here today. I want to remind you of something. You probably don't remember, but some months ago, you actually were outside my office. You were coming out of my neighbor, Doug Collins', office. I tapped you on the shoulder, and in a friendly reminder, I handed you a copy of the Constitution, and I asked you to please help us defend the Constitution. There is nothing more dangerous to our republic than an Attorney General who refuses to uphold his oath, refuses to uphold, and defend the Constitution, and swears allegiance to just one person, Donald Trump. Sadly, that is where we are today. Attorney General Barr. My loyalty is to the Constitution. Ms. Escobar. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Attorney General Barr. That is why I came into government. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Jordan. The lady just accused him of not adhering to his oath of office. Let him talk. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady-- Mr. Jordan. She just accused the Attorney General of the United States of not adhering to his oath. Chair Nadler. The gentlelady-- Mr. Jordan. Let the gentleman speak. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Even worse. Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. The gentlelady yields back. The Ranking Member asked whether the video shown by the gentlelady from Florida took place in the U.S. or in Ecuador. Mr. Jordan. No, Venezuela. Chair Nadler. The U.S. or Venezuela, and that, sir, is precisely the point. This concludes this hearing. Mr. Jordan. No, no, no, she was making-- Chair Nadler. Thank you, Attorney General-- Mr. Jordan. My point was it was Venezuela. Chair Nadler. I thank the Attorney General for participating. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional records for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]