[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]