Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing On Incident With U.S.Park Police Protesters 20240712

June 1. Lawenforcement officers advanced on protesters gathered in the park to protest the death of george floyd to clear the way for President Trump to walk from the white house to st. Johns Episcopal Church where this Natural Resources committee is two hours and 40 minutes. I am asking unanimous consent that all other members be made part of the hearing record. Whatever comes first. If there are no objections, so order. I declare a recess. Described in the documents, as described in the notice, stations, documents or notice to this email. Ed that ourlly, note members are responsible for their own microphones. Anyone present at the hearing today must wear a mask covering their mouth and nose. The speaker of the house acting upon the recommendations of the attended physician require face coverings for all indoor gatherings over 15 minutes in length. In order to maintain the coram and protect the safety of members and staff, the chair will not recognize any member in room to speak was not wearing a mask. Of chair retains the right recognition of any member that wishes to speak or offer a motion. As permitted by the sergeant of make the chair will exception for members briefly removing their mask to facilitate lipreading by viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing as i am doing presently. Who experience technical problems should inform Committee Staff immediately. I willat, i worry recognize myself for the opening statement. For eight minutes and 46 seconds, we all have witnessed the slow and painful death of mr. Floyd. A demanding,d anguished cry for action to deal with the legacy of racism in this country. It is that anguished cry that has risen all across the nation. Thousands of americans have taken to the street to offer a strong declaration that is really a plea for basic humanity , black lives matter. They protest to honor the too many black men, women and children whose lives have been affected, cut short at the hands of racism and brutality. They protested to demand change and demand that their constitutional right to be upheld and call upon a systemic response. Instead of honoring this outcry for justice, this administration demands to End Police Brutality with more Police Brutality. On the afternoon of june first, President Trump called state governors and rated them for not being aggressive enough, saying you have to dominate, if you dont dominate, you are wasting your time. He made clear that this is a war. We against the protesters. We found out that he retreated to the white house bunker the night before. That is after overwhelmingly Peaceful Protesters gathered in Lafayette Square park. Around 6 30, nearly a halfhour before d. C. Curfew would go into suddenlyhe park police moved in on the protesters. Peaceful protesters, innocent bystanders and members of the press were all caught up in a barrage of shields, forces, projectiles and teargas. The militarized assault hit people from the st. Johns church. Church staff is handing off water. Had been forcibly expelled from the socalled battle space, the world witnessed something even more incredible. President trump, accompanied by the attorney general and other white house advisors strolled through the park to st. Johns church where he posed with the bible for a brief photo op. St. Johns had no idea the president would do this. Peaceful protesters, church and press these victims also embody our three main freedoms three main freedoms protected. Freedom of religion and freedom of the press. The Trump Administration is ll scribbling to explain scramble into his plane how this happened. The people at the scene, those who felt the batons, we are fortunate to have some of those people here as Witnesses Today. Yount to thank all of forgiven up your time to help us answer the many questions still own attack and or basic freedoms. I now turn to the Ranking Member, mr. Bishop for his opening statement. Mr. Bishop, youre recognize. Repo Bishop Bishop they use to object to some of the titles we gave our hearings. You guys have learned very well from that, i appreciate that. Have you come up with new titles, you need for yourselves but this one is especially inflammatory. Congratulations on it. There are issues that need to be discussed. That said, we have serious issues to address in the present and we would be selling our society very short were we to ensure without ensuring that there is full truth as to what is going on that is wooded in our history. Not just a myopic and biased view. That means this hearing as far as understanding the truth of what is going on and coming up with a good history is going to be invalid. The witnesses we will be hearing today are here even before any events started. That may be legal but it is highly questionable. An invitation was given to some in the park service who volunteered to come in later after the litigation. That was rejected. Instead we decided to move in with what can only be described as really good political theater. There is a question of why police moved prior to the curfew existing. There are questions why the d. C. Mayor decided to put curfew on in the first place. There are questions of why three warnings with the decibel level that is equivalent to a jet aircraft taking off were not heard by people or where they actually there and when were they there . There is a question about the amount of violence that should take place. Protests are legal but arson is not. Destruction of property is not. Attacking police is not. We know in the park Service Police, within a time of two weeks, there were 50 policemen that were attacked, harmed, injured. Went to the hospital to conduct surgery at the time. All of those are legitimate questions and all of those legitimate questions are not going to be addressed in this Committee Hearing today. It is the structure is not designed to do that. The structure is not designed to come up with an historic statement. The structure is designed to come up with good drama. It on the flight back here i was able to watch three movies. Two of them are historical dramas. They were well done. What we are attempting to do day would fit right nicely into that drama. The other was a musical, i wish you could do that one. That would be more enjoyable. The democrats are going to do something that will not be historical but a distraction, it is political theater. Learned this job very well, i would urge you to become producers of movies, you could do extremely well in this area. Please dont try to write a textbook because you are leaving out too many questions that need to be part of the narrative and need to be part of the questions. The gentleman yields back. Now i will introduce a witness. Let me begin with the d. C. Resident who was a peaceful protest her. They must limit their oral statements to five minutes. Their entire statement will appear. When you begin, the timer will begin. I recommend the members and witnesses joining remotely use active speakers so they can pin the timer in the room. With that, mr. Mcdonnell, welcome. Ranking member bishop and members of this committee, my i have been a resident here for the past five years but was born and placed raised in cleveland, ohio. I am employed with united airlines. Ppreciate on june 1, i joined in a peaceful protest against Racial Injustice. I know there was a curfew imposed for that evening. Arrived last year around 6 00. I observed military vehicles, uniformed soldiers, huge police presence. Try to continue. Get a new microphone. A huge police presence. I began recording missing from my phone. Moment inrecord this history. Andnt toward Lafayette Park observed a huge group of diverse and Peaceful Protesters. It was an overwhelming experience. It was powerful to be a part of it. Officers started approaching us as we sat on the north side side of Lafayette Park. Closer as ifmoved we were posing a threat. We were not. They got directly in front of us to the point where we could have a conversation with them. They got close to us in a threatening kind of way. No instructions, just a show of force. We stood our ground. We said we wanted no trouble. We were met with silence. Instructions, i would have moved. Im sure the crowd would have moved. We were very peaceful before we attacked we were attacked. Andserved a line of police year coming in from the left. Walking,ers were not they were pushing and running toward us with shields. People started to panic. I could not understand what was going on, why they were responding in this way. It was 30 minutes before curfew. We started to retreat. The police started throwing grenades at us for no reason. We were retreating. We did not need any help or treating. It made the situation dangerous. Even before the officers charged us or fire their weapons, it had been peaceful. This is the most important block in the world. It is to distance were being attacked by their own government just for asking for change. I was scared and confused and angry. This group of demonstrators were not soldiers, this was not a battle station test. Treaton a separable to protesters that way in our city and nation. Police as we. Park stood along the fence near Lafayette Park. I joined a lawsuit challenging the attack. This moment is not forgotten in history. Ofs was the same type attacks on average in american protesters in the 1960s when we want to change. It hurts as a black man to see that in 2020 we still have a government that would do this over something that seems so right to protest about. The damage was done when the president decided to violate our First Amendment rights. When a black man is killed, we are attacked. See this as an attack on the black lives Matter Movement . If anyone had the right to be there, it was me. Was attacked with flashbangs as i peacefully protested. Quick thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next. For more than three years, i have been the u. S. Corresponded to one of australias largest commercial broadcasters. I have been called to testify about my experience. Lafayette square park, particularly the incident in which my cameraman and team and i were assaulted by park police on june the first while we were broadcasting live to australia with hundreds of thousands of people watching, including our families. This video that formed part of the coverage in australia shows the incident from multiple angles. Police begin their attack. My cameraman has been hit. We have seen teargas. This is exactly what it looks like. A punt to leg. Another officer lashes out as we run, trying to get out of an early surge. They dont care. They have been indiscriminate at the moment. They chased us down that street. There is teargas and now we are really surrounded. He saw the way they dealt with my cameraman. There were quite violent, they did not care who they were targeting at the moment. We begin our coverage. It is round 5 45 p. M. The atmosphere was passionate but peaceful. In fact, it was far less tense than it was before. We were not alarmed by the site like thetially looked curfew a night before. Regardless, members of the media work exempt from curfew restrictions. We did not hear any warning from Law Enforcement that the area was to be cleared or that the curfew would be enforced early. Suddenly, the police line surged forward. Police letting the park used automatic weapons to fire none lethal rounds. Shane was hit with a projectile in the back rest in the back of the neck. After this first surge we took cover behind a cheery before they try to get the now damaged live transmitter working. We saw the line of police start. O move toward us to a line where we were sheltered by a concrete wall and off the sidewalk. We were clearly a news crew. Most notably, our team was holding a large television camera. We were surrounded by other members of the media and were given no directive by police to move on. The line of police suddenly and without warning began charging forward at us printing pace. A Police Officer that was passing us stopped, turned toward tim and rammed him in the chest and the stomach with the edge of his right showed, causing him to drop down. The officer took a step back, paused and then punched his hand readily into the front of his camera, grabbing the lens. Repeatedlyere both shared in the word, media. A second officer gave us the opportunity to move. As i was running away, a third officer pushed through, going out of his way to strike me with a trenton. As we try to clear the advancing line of police, loud flashbangs boomed around us and some sort of chemical your tent filled the air. I can be heard screaming as i was struck by none lethal projectiles to my leg and backside. Projectiles to my leg and backside. As a reporter, i have no interest in becoming the story. Over recent weeks, many of us have been left with no choice. I have been shocked to see the many journalists have been attacked, beaten and detained for doing their jobs. Do have inherent risks but the media is essential. We dont just have the right to be there, we have the obligation. As australian journalists, we are the eyes and the ears of our people. It is crucial to democracy that journalists be allowed to do their job freely and safely. Public interest law George Washington university, professor, the time is yours. Thank you for the honor of appearing before you today to talk about the controversy of the clearing of Lafayette Park. For 14 years, i was one of the lead councils in the world bank protest litigation that produced the guidelines in case law currently applied in mass demonstration, the van slyke events like the one in Lafayette Park. I have your today in hopes of offering some legal perspective on the governing standards that apply. Also, the fact that a court would likely look like look at when reviewing these allegations. I should disclose that i previously discussed this matter , i criticized the level of force used to remove the protesters from the area. I also stated that night that i thought the attack on the us trillion journalists appeared entirely unjustified and unlawful. I continue to hold those opinions as i discuss in my written testimony. Testimony looks at the motivation, the authority and the means used in the operation. Two points on nomenclature, i refer to the operation as the clearing operation to establish the perimeter to create the fence line. We are all referring to Lafayette Park or Lafayette Square park, obviously youre not just talking about just the park itself, the protesters removed from the park, there was a temporary fence line. Most of the activity occurred on 8th street. A lot of the protesters were street. Back to i when we talk about Lafayette Park, that is the title of this hearing. We are talking about a larger area. That is an area that i think would warrant congressional review. Allegation,oto op that goes to the motivation behind this operation. I wont dwell on that a lot. As my testimony indicates, this may be a case where correlation does not mean causation. There have been a number of statements and timelines presented that indicate that the plan to clear the park create and create the fence line was deposed two days earlier. It was submitted on sunday night. Onwas approved in some form monday morning. In order went out around two. The National Guard was delayed in arriving. That push that operation past 5 00. Whether all of that is true or not is why we need a congressional inquiry. That is an area that i would look at. In terms of the order itself, there was damage and there was violence the day before, that does not mean that an order was lawful or that it was done in a lawful way. In the world bank protest litigation and other cases, we established guidelines that you must have three audible warnings that are spaced apart. You must also give ample opportunity for dispersal in the world dispersal. In the world bank case, we had everyone circling in pershing part freedom plaza. Park freedom plaza. It does appear that the warnings were given but that is the governments account. It does appear that protesters could remove themselves because they were encircled. If you look at these films, it was a very rapid approach of the line, the perimeter line beyond the fence line. The was that enough time . Was it necessary to use the level that it did . My testimony goes through in detail. Courts have largely deferred to in objective reasonable officer in determining what force should be used. The grahamout of analysis. I point out that a number of reports have ruled recently against the use of tear gas and pepper spray. As i say in my testimony, that distention between tear gas and pepper spray is not that essential. Courts tend to group them together. Is important question was that reasonable use of those devices . I summary concludes that the order to clear the park is probably going to be held as lawful. The government does have the right to clear the park. Whether the means used to clear the park is something this committee and other committees may be able to shed some light on. Many courts would express concern on the rapid escalation of force, particularly in a protest involving police abuse allegations. In that reason, i couple congress in looking into this. I would be happy to answer any questions on the legal aspect should members have those. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bishop, the time is yours. Thank you, chairman grijalva, Ranking Member bishop and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As you said, my name is mariann budde. I serve as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of washington which counts among its parishes st. Johns Lafayette Square. I appear today to express my deep concern about the events of june 1 when our government resorted to acts of violence against Peaceful Protesters, and prevented clergy and lay members of the church from exercising their ministry on the grounds of st. Johns. We in the Episcopal Church believe that the issues of racial and social justice are core tenets of the christian faith. The bible teaches all human beings are created in the likeness and image of god. Are created in the likeness and image of god. As children of god, all are to be treated with equal dignity and respect. Embedded in our nations history and institutions is a shameful abuse of black americans and other persons of color justified by the sinful notion of white supremacy, that whiteness is the human standard from which all other human beings deviate and are somehow less human, less worthy of equal treatment. And as christians we are called by god to rectify that injustice. Our faith compels us to join those around the country and the globe who have engaged in nonviolent protests to call for an end to racist policies and practices, and is a clearly, with one voice, that black lives matter. Now for episcopalians the issue of Racial Justice is a shameful part of our history, or we were once the church of slaveholders. And like the white house, st. Johns Lafayette Square was built with enslaved labor. Yet, throughout our history, our noblest members have fought for the liberation of the enslaved, all human and civil rights for all people and to be a church that welcomes all. We have continued to struggle to come to terms with the racist past and legacy and that of American Society as a whole we strive strive to be a voice for peace and the fundamental dignity of all human beings, knowing that at our most faithful we stand on the site of justice. And so we stand today at this article moment. When nonviolent protesters began to gather a Lafayette Square as a church we decided to be present to you at our voice to the call for justice come to stand with an minister to all other Peaceful Protesters gathered there. This was and is for us an act of faith. Our ministry was suddenly and forcefully interrupted by government officials. First on june 1 when the government violently did protesters and clergy alike from the area surrounding st. Johns, and then in the coming days when the government denied as access to the church to conduct the vigil. These actions, and in particular the use of violence against Peaceful Protesters, were antithetical to the teachings of the bible and what we stand for as a as a church. When our government announced its intention to use military force against american citizens in the rose garden that day, t struck me as an escalation of violence that could cause unnecessary suffering. Then to see the government carried out that threat moments later, i was horrified. It was dehumanizing and in violation of the protesters right to be in that space. Then when the president held up a bible outside our church, as if to claim the mantle of Spiritual Authority over what had just transpired, i knew that i had to speak. Nowhere does the bible condone the use of violence against the innocent, especially those who are standing up for justice. It was a misappropriation of scripture, and a usurpation of our sacred space. I raise these issues to call attention to an abuse of power on the part of our government. Which is also at the heart of the larger struggle for Racial Justice. While it is true there are the instances of vandalism at st. Johns in recent weeks, we cannot let those events and others overshadowed the fundamental cause of justice. People across our nation are united as never before. In recognizing that way we police our communities need to change. The way we treat people of color in this country needs to change. Yes, we care deeply about our churches and buildings, but in the end buildings can be replaced, windows can be replaced. Pillars can be repainted. We can never bring back the lives that have been lost due to horrific police violence. These deaths are the true outrage here george floyd, Breonna Taylor, elijah mclean, and so many more. I dont want anything that is happened at st. Johns either before the protest or in the weeks since to distract us from that fact. Black lives matter and our faith compels us to seek equal justice for all people. Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. [inaudible] the testimony. Let me now turn to the questions and recognize mr. Huffman for any questions he might have. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, thanks so much to the witnesses for great testimony. I want to begin by taking issue respectfully with the Ranking Members mocking of the title of this hearing. The hearing is titled the u. S. Park Police Attack on Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette Square. That is not dramatization. That is fact. That is exactly what happened. If there was a shred of evidence to support the gas lighting counter narrative that weve heard from this administration, i would think that the gentleman across the aisle wouldve called a fact witness to offer that narrative. We got a very thoughtful explanation of the Legal Framework from professor turley. Thank you, professor for that. We didnt get in fact, witnesses to support this gas lighting and think that speaks volumes. Before we get into further questions i want to express my disappointment that at least so far our friends across the aisle, apparently no longer have the same concerns about heavyhanded Police Tactics, militarization and other police abuse by department of the interior agencies. Concerns that used to speak compassionately about when barack obama was president. Apparently those concerned disappeared when donald trump became president but some of us are old enough to remember the hearings that republican majority held in 201314 entitled now were talking about those incendiary titles were used to see, entitled threats, intimidation and bullying by federal land managing agencies. And at the time one of our republican colleagues described, i quote, these type of very have it handed swat like teams with nondoj agencies being used as a tip of the spear for federal Law Enforcement. He called it heavyhanded, intimidating to the American People, and said that threatened the trust that is so important between american citizens and their government. That was 2014 after an all white armed militia gathered to stop federal land agency Law Enforcement from confiscating climbing bank is cattle which had been illegally bracing for 20 years. Law enforcement back down because of the heavily armed militia are testing but at the time and then again in 2016 during the armed occupation of the National Wildlife refuge in oregon i similar group, an angry white heavily armed group of protesters we heard it very different tune about federal policing tactics from congressional republicans. Some of them introduce legislation to eliminate Law Enforcement authorities from the blm and the force service on the grounds that these agencies were quote armed to the teeth. They described Armed Police Department to cheer agencies as quote dangers come unnecessary and sending the wrong message pick some of our republican colleagues on this committee were cosponsors to that bill. Talk about defund the police. Republicans in congress were eager to do exactly that to make sure that folks like bundy could continue breaking the law with impunity. Fastforward to the peaceful protests for Racial Justice at Lafayette Square. Peaceful, and on the protests come protesters were met with a response for more aggressive, former militarize and far less necessary and anything used against those white militias in 2014 and 2016. 2016. As our witnesses confirm as any objective person doing the video knows, heavily armed u. S. Park police carried out orders to use chemical agent at other forceful means to clear protesters so the donald trump could have a weird photo op with someones bible. Most people would consider this heavyhanded, intimidating, dangers, and misses her the wrong message, all those exact terms that our republican colleagues used to describe the Police Tactics against white militias when they were defending lawbreaking ranchers in 2014 and 2016. I am disappointed that we dont have the same level of concern from our colleagues across the aisle but we havent heard from many of them so maybe we will hear it. Support they not be silent or openly supportive of this heavyhanded militarized police abuse directed at black people, and those supporting them the work peacefully protesting for Racial Justice. Whats so different about the situation today . The president , the people protesting, and their cost. For our Witnesses Today please note our many members of cogs of people across this country who stand with you and support your rights to protest injustice. This should not have happened to you and were committed to exercising oversight authority, even if some of our colleagues are not sanguine, content with a double standard, standing with President Trump to the bitter end. I yield back. Gentleman yields. Chair recognizes mr. Mcclintock. Sir, the time is short. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think we need to make a distinction between the right to peaceable assembly, which is sacred and protected under our First Amendment, and violence, arson and vandalism which is not so protected it i think we have got a video of damage done in washington, d. C. In the days leading up to this. I wonder if we could play that . [shouting] protesters have lit a fire. These were the events leading up to the incident on june 1. The secretary of the interior described the situation they were facing thusly, beginning on saturday may 30, the park police wonder state of siege, and regina subject to attack by violent crowds. The incidence are numerous and include u. S. Park Police Officers having their police cars vandalized, being subject to bombardment by lida flares, while tough coccus, rocks, bricks, models and other projectiles and physical assault so violent that today over the area Law Enforcement officers have been injured to include one u. S. Park Police Officer so violently attacked that he required emergency surgery. To describe what happened in washington, d. C. As mostly peaceful protests i think is a lot like describing Scott Peterson as a mostly faithful husband, or al capone as a mostly lawabiding businessman. Professor turley, what are the responsibilities of Peaceful Protesters when a protest turns violent . Thank you, congressman. The way that the courts have addressed this is that they recognize that these protests are, in fact, the display of a First Amendment right, free speech. However, the court has said that areas can be cleared for unpermitted demonstrations if warnings are given and they are not heated, as long as the demonstrators have an avenue by which to exit, which didnt occur. What are the responsibilities of a truly Peaceful Protesters went and assume has been declared unlawful . At that point when theyre asked to leave an area they are required by law to leave. That doesnt go to the means by which you can move them but it certainly means that the order itself to disperse is likely to be held as lawful. Court also do allow for that perimeter to be pushed back if you are assembling Something Like offense, how far that perimeter should be established, the courts look at. The often look at for example, the park police and that would be a legal question to be examined by the courts. What course of action would you recommend to congress . Im sorry . What recommendations would you make to congress . I think that Congress Needs to ask a number of questions. I have listed ten that are standard questions that are used in protest cases, including the essential evidence that we often look to, things like running resumes, to determine what orders were given and when. I encourage congress to do that. They also should take a look as the court will at the level of damage and violence on the other side. The government has argued 100 officers in the area had been injured in the park police say that 50 of their own officers have been injured. Thats a very high level of injury rate for Law Enforcement. Thank you. Thank you. Let me ask chairman of the subcommittee mr. Lowenthal. Thank thank you, mr. Chair. And i want to thank all the witnesses for attending, taking their time to share their experiences while they were there. You know, i worked before again to congress and was an elected official as a Community Organizer and also as an activist in my community. And i know that theres a certain about of risk thats always involved when you stand up in what you believe is right, while protesting or speaking out. So my question is to each of the panelists, first to mr. Mcdonald. Why did you feel that it was worth that risk to be at Lafayette Square that day . Why was it important to you to be there . Well, george floyd was just 46, 47. I am 39. I will be 40 this year so i believe him dine was affecting my life i wanted to make sure i was down there to be part of a peaceful protest to voice inequity and injustice against like people. I followed my duty to be down there and had a chance to be down there. I never had a chance to be at another protest ever saw took it upon my duty to go down and make sure i was protesting for george floyd. Thank you. Ms. Brace, as a reporter why did you feel that it was important to for you to be there that day . As i mentioned in my opening statement, its imperative to democracy it journalist be on the ground. Journalists cant work remotely. We cant see whats happening on the frontline of an incident if were standing a block away. So in order to fulfill a role in democracy we have to be standing right in the middle. So i think that we were it was incredibly important in terms of telling the story of what happened that day. Thank you. And bishop, bishop budde, while you were not physically present, you are supportive of people in your diocese who were there and you spoken out here today and publicly about it. Why was it important for them to be there and why was it so important for you to speak out . The issues of Racial Equity and justice are fundamental to the christian faith, and they are of primary importance now in our country. With the inequities, particularly in policing, have become so blatant. To be honest i couldnt have stopped my members from coming because they were so determined to add their voice and the presence to the gathering of nonviolent protest. What we wanted to do as well was to acknowledge our presence, to stand with people, and also to offer whatever we could to ensure greater safety, providing Hand Sanitizer and water and masks even to make sure that whatever we did contributed to the public good while we were making our statement in support of a change in racist practices and policies. Well, i want to thank all of you. Appreciate hearing your stories of why you were there. You know, and your motivation for being there, all of this which is protected under the constitution. I have also a very important question about the events for the administration and im very concerned that no one in the administration has shown up today to answer the questions. But mr. Mcdonald, ms. Brace, they shut bad, i want to thank you for standing up for what is your constitutional right to stand up for, and for standing up for just what is right and just today. And im glad that you spoke out on june 1 and that your speaking out today. I really appreciate your testimony. With that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Let me turn to the Ranking Member, mr. Bishop. Thank you, thank you, and iso see mr. Lowenthal by video there, and comments that i was doing, unless you are trying out for the role of grizzly athens come i expect you to be without a beard when you come back here. Deal . Almost a deal. Whatever. I would ask you, ask you to grow a beard. [laughing] you would be enthralled with it. [laughing] solo, in light of the statements that were made by mr. Lowenthal, mr. Huffington us will come even though the administration was willing to come and testify but was not necessarily allowed in the timeline that the democrats decide to do let me ask at least but in the record to get some element of dallas to this. First a statement by the park police. This is by chief monahan beginning what he was doing into which includes almost the fact, includes the fact that d. C. Police were injured and that verifies there the were three s that were issued at the time. Also statement by the Natural Parks Service that goes into the memorial and statues that a been in recent weeks, especially her and the district of columbia. And if i could ask unanimous consent to have those placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. I also appreciate, i would appreciate the questions of mr. Huntington but there were no questions. The two issues he mention that took place back in the west were dismissed legally because of excesses by the prosecution of the park service is at that time. I admit that come which is a question we have at hand here, which unfortunately this hearing will not go to because we do not have any of the administration witnesses allowed to be of which could answer those. We do love you, mr. Turley and appreciate your willingness of short notice to come here and try and be an impartial voice policed a voice that is that aside from personal involvement within this particular situation. I think you would only doing that. Let me just go about the concepts of protesters we know the First Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to Peaceful Assembly. Can you define what that Peaceful Assembly would look like . Very briefly. Well, Peaceful Assembly means that you cannot be stopped from appearing in in a demonstratio, protest, gathering, particularly in speaking against the government as long as you comply with the federal and state laws here it does that give you a license to violate laws and obviously doesnt get a license commit arson or any other crime. It also does that give you license to be in an unpermitted space if you are given warnings an opportunity to leave. Thats the position of cases like barnum and chang that i go through in testimony. What you did is to simply elaborated weathers constitutional limits thickly placed on those particular rights. Well, there are limits. Theyre so absolute rights in the constitution, and the courts actually have headed down some really i think quite profound opinions on this. The Supreme Court has talked about how important it is to give breathing room to free speech and protests but is also said that this is not an absolute right. This is a bright it is enjoyed within the confines of federal and state law right. In like 15 seconds or so can you just identify the facts, the conditions that would legally permit Law Enforcement to disperse and Assembly Like happened on h street . Right. The park actually, the day before the park police had already cleared the immediate park area when we talk about Lafayette Park, were talking about a larger area now. And the question was can they push forward that perimeter in order to establish a fence line . In my view the court is likely to find that order to be lawful because of the degree of Property Damage, the injuries to the officers here that order is likely to be upheld. The question is the means used. Was this done properly . Let me go into that specifically because there is the allegation floating out there that this was done for a photo op. I think you mentioned something, can you make a firm connection between the actions and the php opportunity . Or where they the things that t happen to be in a similar time frame . Well, on the Current Record this appears to be a case of correlation without causation, that the attorney general and the head of the park police and others have said that this plan was actually approved 48 hours in advance. They presented evidence that the operation itself was delayed because of the fencing and reinforcements that were brought forward, and they have denied knowledge of the photo op when these orders were given. Three seconds and you did that very well. Thank you, sir. There may be of the question prayer for the record. My time is up. Thank you. Let me recognize the chairman of the subcommittee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. For the record i actually have been pepper spray. Military training by the way. Pepper sprayed, gascony, gas mask training numerous times probably eight times in my life as well as ive had trained with the United States marine corps. So i do have some experience both in the uses of the batons, formations as well as the most important thing, deescalation. What was your position in the navy . I was a human. Say again. A yeoman. What type of training did you receive in terms of if any, in terms of dealing with civilian situations . We never really dealt with the escalation. This was 99. Thank you for your service and thank you participating in the black lives matter protest because it does matter. Mr. Turley, you talk about the legality of the park police being able to clear the area. Do your background in the necessity for the requirement of deescalation . There is training. My background is counsel on protest case. I dont have your experience of dealing directly with things like these chemicals but all departments that in no, the ones ive encountered, supposed be trained in the escalation and that goes to the means. The area that he think that would be useful for the committee to make an inquiry on really was captured in the video when you see the line move rapidly forward. If i was counsel i would look at that as to why the line moved, and also at what point was the last warning given before the line moved forward at the rapid pace . All come back to that. Ms. Brace, did you hear any warnings . None. When you were attacked by this Police Officer, were you resisting . No. Was your cameraman resisting . No. You had your back to them in front member and you were fling. Thats correct. Mr. Turley, as a lawyer what was that park Police Officer doing when he was attacking a fleeting protester. Was as i i think that attack was unlawful. From the video it seems clear to me that any officer could have seen that the australian journalists were, in fact, journalist. They identified themselves quickly as little. I thought i saw Media Credentials on that. But also they knew there were journalists in the area, so this one doesnt strike me as a very close call. This was im not trying to pass out what makes regular question. Mr. Mcdonald, did you hear any warning sounds . No. Ms. Brace, in the day before had you heard warnings before one in the protest zone . Not that i can recall. One of the things, mr. Chairman i would like the training manual for these Police Officers. When i was in the marine corps when i did controlled training i would never have been told to rush forward with the baton swinging. I wasnt it could create a stampede of people, its very dangerous. Number two, it is tactically stupid to do that. Because your lines are exposed. The only reason youd actually move in that manner is pure intimidation which is not the purpose of a deterrent front. Youre trying to keep people away. The way to have done it is got it online and move slowly and slowly and slowly that would have allowed the protesters time to realize whats going on they would have had the opportunity to escape, and would not have made this illegal there is a purpose to this and it was law and order for the president before he came out to hold his photo op. With that, youll back my time. The gentleman yields, you are recognize her. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I was listening to the testimony and watching the video thus far, it appears like there is note monopoly on blame here. I would like to be absently certain we get the entire story. I think weve got a video that shows some assaults on Law Enforcement. If we have that could be played that please . [background noises] [inaudible] [inaudible] [background noises] [background noises] [inaudible] telling you to back off, back off im telling you to back off. [inaudible] and hopefully we can solve this. [inaudible] in the remaining time first of all had the opportunity to travel, work be in a lot of nations around this world, a lot of then roll of lives is not enjoyed. Generally speaking the lack of prosperity reflects that. That is why this entire situation is incredibly troubling to me. I like to ask mr. Turley, as unfortunate as it is, from a legal perspective, can you define what Peaceful Assembly looks like . What are the parameters of that . And where does that cross the line from not being legal . This is on the earlier question work courts tend to define what constitute peaceful is often determining qualified immunity decisions. Was the officer correct in the use of the level of force in the case . And the courts have said this deferred officers because of what the court referred to as making split second judgments that are unasserted and rapidly evolving. That is how the Supreme Court referred to it. So with the courts look at is whether the protesters ignored orders to disperse and whether they were obstructive or violence not this committee will have to look at the period after warnings were given, before the line moved forward, what were those officers facing . That is what a court will do. It will demand very clear evidence on both sides to determine whether that is a peaceful situation where this is not warranted and the police escalated it or wait whether they were responding to a threat to their safety and the fate safety of others. Thank you for that and theres one of the things id like you to address if you could assuming we can get some good peaceful dialogue here, what step is through very quickly the Legal Process for how should we be doing this . If we want to change some of these monuments how should we be doing that . There been great suggestions in both houses on Police Reform including the National Database and the issue many of us have raised in the past. In terms of this incident, i gave ten questions ob a useful start for this committee. It would get to the base information you need including actual contemporary calls made by officers, the socalled running resume evidence. In a protest case that is the first thing we ask for is the running resume. Also, you have objective sources injuries for protesters, those things can be acquired. The other thing i would encourage you to get up very quickly is non u. S. Park police and their agencies and roles. I can tell you in terms of evidence thats the stuff im most concerned with. It is the stuff thats most difficult to get. You may be able to get a lead on that for what are called ml use. These are memorandums of understanding are often cut with non federal agencies or non part police personnel. Those may give you an indication of who was involved at that scene. I can tell you in the purging park case, we started out with the park police, the d. C. Police, the secret service and ended up with a long list of units that we had no idea were present. Steve x thank you, mr. Chairman i yield back. The gentleman yields. Chairman of the subcommittee you are recognize sir. Thank you chairman and thank you for all the witnesses for being here today. I want to say reverend thank you so much for your testimony, i think you may have turned a catholic to an episcopalian today. [laughter] i will tell you what i am certainly here as a role in the member of congress is my faith, as he said so eloquently, is to seek equal justice for all people so thank you so much for that. I want to apologize you were called a vandal, arsonist or other. Likewise, mr. Mcdonald and ms. Brace as well. You are there at Lafayette Square on june 1. Mr. Mcdonald i want to thank you for your service to the United States navy. Im sure when you enlisted you took a very similar oath of office that we did. When we took the oath of office to be a member of congress to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. And in that first article on the congress will make the law with the freedom of speech or of the press or the right for people to peacefully assemble, if you could say why you were there that day to peacefully assemble . I share the same views as a black lives Matter Movements and everyone is down there. On june 1 it was peaceful protest when the middle i got down in the middle we were attacked. We were chanting for injustice we did not hear warnings to move i was there to strictly priestly unchecked peacefully protest. You are exercising your rights, your Constitutional Rights as a citizen they had sworn previously to upheld. And you feel those were a bridge that day . Can you say that again . Do you feel those rights were infringed upon that day . Yes, absolutely most definitely. As an objective citizen from another country, ms. Brace, sally sells well . Yes it is. I guess, professor turley, i also sit on the agate committee, and i have been taught that if something looks like a duck count sounds like a duck walks like a duck it probably is a duck alright . The idea that the white house had no idea that day that the park had to be cleared, is beyond. Just all the sudden the president is making his speech and amended use of the greater way behold the park is cleared. He have gone out there to have his photo of the park hadnt been cleared . What i suggested my testimony is first about i do think you need to establish that. And you can establish that. The account from the attorney general and others is that the order like the plan was improved in the morning on monday there is a delay on fencing with National Guardsmen all that can be confirmed by this committee. That does not necessarily answer the question that i raise in my testimony and the of those are lies, would be was there any last minute discussion whether this to be delayed. In my view it should have been delayed it should have been delayed until the following morning. But it is at that juncture that twilight moment if i was counsel that is what i would be looking at. I would also be looking at whether the perimeter size pushed to i street was impacted all that should be attainable by the committee. And we will look at that thank you so much. We have seen video from los angeles and new york and chicago on may 31 and june 26, is that all relevant the peaceful protest that was going on on june 1 . The court would issue it happened in Lafayette Park the day before. Two have out the day of . The day of his most important criteria the court will be looking. There were clergy offering medical support. Okay . So it was a kumbaya moment it was a Peaceful Assembly. What happened the day before justify the order to clear the park and establish the fencing including the wider perimeter. Then i think it would focus on what was actually happening at that moment as to whether the level of force deployed was lawful and reasonable. That is where your point is a salient one. I think that is where this committee could make some Real Progress in defining for. Thank you so much. I do have another question about the secret police but we will get to those another day, a yield. The gentleman yields let me recognize, you are recognize or pursue my you mr. Chairman i appreciate all the witnesses nobody could say the video of george floyd being killed and not be moved. Theres no question about that i greatly appreciate the floyd family, urging peaceful protests and not violence, that is not what they wanted for georges legacy. So there are important issues that need to be addressed here. Mr. Mcdonald, thank you for your service in the navy to our country. I have seen from your statement how long we in the navy . Nine months. Nine months could you run into prejudice in the navy, racial prejudice . No i did not. In your statement you mentioned that the Police Stopped pushing forward at the urging of protesters when the man had fallen there and was be in trent began using less lethal force. In chung with a black man that fell in my statement . Yes he fell me asked the police to stop. It took us a minute to get him up and move them as soon as we got them up and militant they started running at us. They did not stop to help us. Stu met what force of the using at that time . Severe neck their batons and shield. Nesbitt had been rather traumatic i was the you in your cameraman came prepared with the goggles with your experience youve been in a lot of protest around the world, we appreciate your coverage, just looking back through june 8, apparently just through june 8 there are 17 people died and incident stemming from the unrest from George Floyds death, including these people. I dont how anyone could not beat move since she wasnt shot by the police it was one of you it was one of the protesters, when protest get out of hand people get hurt is there a point you can tell this is about to turn violent . You couldnt never be certain obviously can certainly feel tension rising i have never had any reason to expect violence from the police. You cant be sure when you see bricks being thrown at the police recently if you are civilian in the way, you may be hit by a protesters brick. Its got to be hard to tell. I sought nothing on june 1 that made me feel any way alarmed before the police surged forward. We out at the protest the night st. Johns had a fire started . Yes the night of may 31. Did you see how anybody got into the church to start the fires . No i did not. Could you understand why Law Enforcement might be concerned about others getting into the church either legally or illegally to cause more damage . I cannot speak to the motivation of the police but as they pointed out there is the importance of distinction. I have said in my on june 1 that question at the moment i did not see anything that would warrant the movement of police. And bishop, i appreciate her efforts at social justice. What you think is the hope for those in washington d. C. s protesting . I cannot speak for all protesters, i think black lives matter is the way we are expressing a collective cry that we have equity in our policing, black and brown persons can expect the same level of treatment and safety when they are encountering police this amana for all practices to cause black and brown people to cheat fear for their lives when encountering the very people who are meant to keep you safe . Thank you, mr. Chairman theres africanamerican minister who set our hope is in jesus christ, i yield back. The gentleman yields, let me recognize the gentle lady from new mexico. You are recognize. Thank you mr. Chair, thank you for convening today thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today our colleagues have said it already the events of june 1 will go down is one of the darkest days of this presidency. That is saying something for a president who is put children in cages, protected his friends from prosecution and opened our election to foreign interference. Attacks on the constitution are not new for this president but clearing a peaceful demonstration for a photo up with his cabinet is an unbelievably new low. We will rightly focus on the actions of june 1 but we cannot lose sight of the larger moments we are all in. Todays hearing is also about a larger trend of systemic racism in which militarized police inseminate and kill and committees of colors while defendant from prosecution for the president s recent actions brought that Excessive Force to the fore in a new and unconstitutional way. This is by no means an isolated incident. While i respect the work federal Civil Servants do every single day, there are times they do things our nation is not proud of. In november, 2017 the u. S. Park police murdered just over the river in arlington while he drove his car, still, sam is not had justice. Earlier this year in my state of new mexico, charles engaged lawrence was driving back to his home in colorado when he was murdered by u. S. Park ranger on one of our National Park spray spoke to his mothers attorney recently but i could not explain why that killer still patrolled one of our National Parks and why he had not been brought to justice. Today, we are here to talk about the president and his illegal and unconstitutional actions. We also need to discuss power, to discuss fear, to discuss unequal treatment under the law. We did not choose to live in a society where the president wields the power of our government to break up peoples protest anymore and communities of color across the nation choose to live in fear of unequal policing. Try to what breakdown and norms lets try to understand what went on with the clearing and law fails park and lets look at the systemic oppression is same fear and power to control and killing communities across our country. Because i have stated, this is not an isolated incident. Mr. Mcdonald and ms. Bryce, mr. Mcdonald you can go first. At any time did you see any park police or Law Enforcement officers stop or double back to provide medical assistance or facilitate medical assistance when somebody was clearly injured . Ms. Bryce . No i did not. And again, mr. Mcdonald and ms. Bryce do you expect Law Enforcement to provide basic care and or call call medical assistance when someone is hurt . Yes, i do. Why do you have that expectation . Im sorry . Again i would expect the police to protect civilians and also working. Thank you so much part of the mission part of the National Park police is to protect lives. It is to protect lives its part of their mission is to protect lives. I appreciate all of you being here today. Bishop marianne thank you for your columnists, for your heart, and for your leadership in this troubled time, i appreciate it very much. In chairman i yield. We recognize mr. Westerman for your comments and questions . [inaudible] thank you, mr. Chairman. A couple of my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about how the park police were not here to present any statement or facts. And yet i have been led to believe they were constrained from being here because, like assistant chief said to you mr. Chairman that to be on the same panel with a person who is suing them, and a case of active litigation would make him legally constrained and not able to testify at the same time. So i wish you could have structured this hearing today for that was not an impediment to hearing from the park police. To think that wouldve been very helpful. And so that is what i ascribed their absence too, the legal constraints. Mr. Mcdonald you have filed suit against the department of materials and other seeking money damages . President trump violator for cement rights. So that includes the department of interior. Aclu has a lawsuit i am part of for violation of first memo it writes. Okay said mr. Chairman i wish you could have structured things we could have heard from all of the Interested Party sees here today. Second i like to ask unanimous consent to have inserted into the record a letter from the paternal order of police, park police dated june 19, this letter was sent to the letter of the Washington Post that they have not seen fit to print this letter but it explain some things from the perspective of the police on the park Police Comments of chairman like to insert this in the record. Without objection so ordered. And so thirdly i went to Journalism School myself whether its from police or protesters, journalist should be able to do my job. Someone to talk abut assaults on journalism. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] protesters is something that should not be part of a peaceful protest, ms. Bryce . So yes of course. Mr. Turley . Yes. Mr. Mcdonald customer. Mr. Turley or journalists are being attacked by protesters turned into rioters. Effectively to disperse the protesters. Any violence of Lafayette Squares is going to be considered by a court as a justification for expanding the perimeter, for setting up the fence, for clearing the area. There was a high level of violence that was being reported by the park police. If the officers, a lot of officers are injured in a protest case. And if its as high as 100 thats pretty high. Theres obviously some arson and some Property Damage brita court would conclude through this three day. Were not entirely peaceful. Let Law Enforcement facing threats. As a alluded earlier the courts used to push back the line i look specifically at the violence at that time her and think the court is going to consider both, the whole context in other words. So times i might also insert into the record the letter dated the 24th to you from the department of interior explaining mr. Monahans ability to testify or not. Let me recognize her questions. Stomach thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Brace did you have anything identifying you as media . So im sorry to repeat the question. To do have an identification when the front with a lanyard identify you as media . So no we do not like to wear press passes around our next for safety reasons. Okay. Did you hear them use a reverend buddy the squares did you usable lauren . No, we did not. Idea why your an church was focused on Racial Injustice in particular . Church, st. Johns, [indiscernible] capital for many years, due to its proximity to the white house. Your church decided to champion Racial Injustice. Why do you feel this is important to the people . Is it because of proximity to the white house . We took advantage of the proximity to the white house. All our protest happened there. All of our congregations are committed to Racial Justice. I commend you for that. It is very important. All lives matter. ,t is important recognize that injustice has been going on for many generations. To stop. S going apparently we do not have the will at the top to do that. Then as President Trump stood for his photo op in front of holding his bible, what went through your mind when you saw that . I said before, was outraged. I felt it was a misuse of both the space and the bible, for him to claim in that moment, having just said what was said in the rose garden and witnessed what we witnessed in the park. It was as if he was putting on a of spiritual accord to justify his actions. Orwas there any memo, letter phone call to you to apologize . No. For us tomportant recognize this was not the first time and probably not the last time we will have injustice with people of color. What do you think the government to rectifyanybody this, with officers of the top level [indiscernible] a change in attempting to deal with racial issues . Thank you. Me to weigh in on how the policy should be changed, but at the minimum, there should be equity,. Esponsibility no matter who is at fault and that are black and brown fellow citizens should be able to have the same degree of security and safety that white americans feel when they encounter police. [indiscernible] heredont presume to come to tell the American People how to run their police force or their government. I would expect protesters to be able to peacefully protest and for the media to be able to safely cover such events. Mr. Mcdonald . The bottom line is, respect the constitution. How we drafted it up. I am here to talk about what happened june 1. They dishonored our rights to peacefully protest and freedom of assembly. We would not have an issue at all. Thank you for testifying. I yelled back. The gentlelady yields. I recognize mr. Westerman. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Personal testimony. I think of your firsthand account of the things that went on. Part of the function of oversight is to make sure the law is being carried out, justice is administered, and if not, we rectify that. It is important to have oversight hearings like this. Also realize your firsthand accounts were bits and pieces of a bigger story. I think there is more for us to learn that we cannot learn from the meeting here today. Notink there are voices being heard and we need to hear all voices and here where the problems are. I have a letter here from the federal Law Enforcement officers association. It says, while otherwise Peaceful Protesters were by radical groups, federal Law Enforcement officers were thrust into rolls of protecting and preserving the safety of not only our city streets, but National Monuments in history we hold dear. They went on to say, no clearer here in rule than washington, d. C. , where Lafayette Park was besieged by radical and violent groups of individuals. They set fire and vandalized st. Johns church, attacked and vandalized monuments in and around the National Capital including the world war ii , memorial. Attribution entire the work of an entire generation of americans that kept our world free. Daily andunder Violent Attacks from rioters and were constantly pelted with frozen bottles of urine, fireworks, bricks, stones, street pavers, and all manners of unknown substances. Those are other federal Law Enforcement offers including the secret entities, and the metropolitan Police Department joined that time to try to quell the violence, and allow voices of Peaceful Protesters to be heard. I would like to submit this to the record. Mr. Lamborn referred to the oped from the fraternal order of police that was denied publishing in the Washington Post to counter an article that the post put out. Weekend, 51er the u. S. Park Police Officers required medical treatment for injuries sustained on duty. It goes on and on p i am saying, there is another side of the story. An investigation going on by inspector ofnd the the department of the interior. I wish we could have waited until we had that evidence and could get more witnesses to be heard. Said, i have no reason to doubt what you are saying. I think we have to take an open look at these things going forward. , if indeed those members of the park police were injured, transported to hospital, all these things going on, in your opinion, was it illegal for the police to clear the park . The court would likely say it was a lawful order to clear the park. My testimony, they had all the elements, particularly if they gave the prewarning soon enough to disperse. That does not answer the secondary question. I also have to say when i saw the figures of the 50 injured ofk Police Officers, a claim 100 injured federal officers, i was quite surprised. That is a high number of injuries. I think a court would probably approach this question, with out saying this was an entirely peaceful protest the court would recognize there were Security Issues that were valid for the administration. The court would likely say the original order was lawful and focus in as i talked about critical period. I will have the line moved. We have to move on. About thee talk christian thing to do, certainly to work for justice and equality. I believe that, try to practice with the bible teaches, but it also talks about being in subjection to governing authorities. Peter said submit yourself for , the lords sake to every human institution. Even jesus when he was prodded to rebel against the government said, render unto caesar what is caesars. I wanted to ask the bishop, do you believe in the christians duty when working for justice and equality to follow the law and submit to those in authority and condemn violence and unlawful acts such as rioting and arson . Believe it isy necessary to condemn violence and arson, but i also would take issue at an interpretation of scripture that does not include the long legacy of the struggle for liberation and freedom and the opportunity when given time and time again. The scripture tells us time and again we must obey the laws of god, not the laws of man, especially when they are in just unjust. In a democracy we have the responsibility to ensure the laws are just and they are justly enforced by those who were entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the governance of our people. Are you saying laws against violence and arson are unjust . I am not. I yield back. The gentleman yields. Thank you to todays witnesses. Thankticular i want to you for your testimony. My family attends the Episcopal Church in san juan capistrano, california. It is very meaningful to have you here today. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record Washington Post article contributed by the wreck your tontribute it by the rector a st. Johns Episcopal Church in georgetown. As she got to the church around 4 00 p. M. That day as she said to offer peaceful and prayerful support to the protesters she describes is seen as upbeat and peaceful, she wrote quote my colleagues and i passed out water and snacks. Andle exchanged prayers elbow bonds. I 6 00 p. M. , most of my colleagues had left. Do you have any reason to believe she was not being truthful in her description . Absolutely not. Does this align with the scene you saw as well . Yes, it does. Did any of the videos my republican colleagues played look like the scene at Lafayette Square june 1 before Police Attacked . No, they did not. No, they did not. We see that the scene of peace and camaraderie dramatically changes around 6 15 p. M. As the officers move from Lafayette Park into the street. After hearing the first loud bang of a flash grenade she describes, and i quote, yelling and panic. And then she says on a quote i could not believe my eyes, a wall of police in full riot gear is physically pushing people off the st. Johns patio maybe 15 feet away from me. We have a firsthand account of u. S. Park police entering peaceful protests with brutality which was the subject of the protest to begin with. When you heard they were physically being pushed off of the patio, what went through your mind . I was stunned, horrified and concerned for their safety and the safety of others. Like others who expressed their civic response, i was outraged at the park police and others acting in that manner. The reverend described President Trumps photo op with the bible, called it sacrilege. Would you agree with that statement . Bishop budde i thought about it, and yes, i would. It is taking something sacred and using it and misapplying its message to justify something power. And an abuse of nothing in the scriptures would condone that behavior. Thank you. I would like to turn to you. The video of you and your cameraman being attacked speaks louder than words. Since taking his oath to protect the constitution of the United States, this president has repeatedly attacked the free press, calling the media the enemy of the people, limiting access to press conferences, sending ceaseanddesist letters about news stories he does not like. Park police violently attacked you and your cameraman, despite you clearly identifying ourselves as members of the press and having newsgathering equipment. Do you believe the president s rhetoric and actions toward the free press has impacted the way the media has been treated by Law Enforcement . I cant speak to the motivation of members of Law Enforcement here in the United States. There has been a noticeable trend in the treatment of the media by members of the police force. Myself and my of fiance, working in minneapolis. He was arrested while working legally. We have seen a number of other instances across the country, where the press has been targeted, even buying members of the police. While i cannot say why this is happening, it is what i see as a trend and that is worrying for a free press. Do you believe this will have lasting impacts on journalism and the u. S. And abroad . Ms. Brace i think anything that deters journalists from being able to do their job safely could deter people from becoming journalists or doing their jobs without fear or favor, which is what we are meant to be doing. Thank you. In the words of the late elijah cummings, we are better than this. Thank you. I yield back. Let me recognize the. Entlelady from puerto rico the time is yours. Thank you, i would like to yield my time. Who does she yield to . Me. Thank you, i appreciate that. [indiscernible] this is specifically for you. Good. Specifically for you. Two quick questions to ask. As i was listening to the brace, some of the testimony and what you said having seen the nation nature of the protest, you and your cameraman purchased protective ewear. Ent, ey is that correct . Was it for a series of events or for a trend you saw . Ms. Brace we bought that on may 31. Rep. Bishop was it for a specific incident or a trend . Ms. Brace i would say it is because of what we saw in minneapolis. Rep. Bishop i would accept that as a trend. Can i ask you one other question . If you were wearing a lanyard and you said no, did you indeed say you dont want to identify yourself as media, for fear of protection . Ms. Brace no, i did not say that. Not bishop why did you identify yourself as media with a lanyard . What did you tell her . Ms. Brace i had my state Department Press identification. I do not like to wear it on my neck for safety reasons. It can be pulled in a protest. Rep. Bishop i am sorry, that was interesting and fascinating to me. Mr. Turley, a moment last thing to ask you at the same time. As i was looking more at the stuff we put into the record from the interior department. According to the department the elrod used by the that apartment model p is a 100x hopefully that means something to you. That means it is 20 decibels to 30 decibels louder than a typical bullhorn or pa systems of the model used has a maximum range of about 2000 feet with a peak output at 140 decibels. To compare that to a jet engine decibels ates 140 100 feet. This script read as follows. This is major mark with the United States park police. For safety and security reasons Lafayette Park and eighth street , are closed to pedestrians. Your are ordered to depart the area. This is your first warning. And they said there were two more warnings like this one given. The last one said this was a final warning. According to legal standards that youve been talking about, is that warning sufficient to satisfy the warning requirement law before dispersing demonstrators like they did on june 1. It is sufficient. D system maythe elro have been used. It is a huge improvement over prior years when they would use the pa systems off of patrol cars. Is a much broader range by magnitude of dozens in terms of the penetration of that system. It does not mean you cannot have canceling noise and a protest. Objectsarly if you have around you. That is the Gold Standard for amplification in these situations. It is much easier to hear than a bulb a bullhorn. It is a recommended system for many libertarians. It is a system that has a significant penetration range. There are circumstances where people might not have heard it. People around you could be screaming in your ear. Those are canceling noises. But this really is the Gold Standard in terms of use of amplification. 30 seconds for this one. If someone heard a statement from a policeman saying, move, move, is that the legal qualification that would be used . When an officer tells you to move back after warnings, you are expected to comply. If somebody in written testimony were to say they heard an officer say move, move, that would be legal an expectation that they would then move . Yes. You are expected to follow the orders of the officers, especially after the issuance of those warnings. Thank you. I think the gentlelady for puerto rico. Hope things are going well for you down there. The gentlelady yields back. You are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. For this committee and congress to fulfill our oversight duties, we must have a detailed understanding of the events that unfolded earlier this month. I thank each of the witnesses for appearing today and your testimony. I want to ask a question of ms. Brace. I wonder if you could share your reaction when they said the acting chief stated the u. S. Officers and other assisting Law Enforcement officers did not use scatter shells to close the area in Lafayette Park, despite your experience being the opposite. I am not an expert in ballistics or the use of gas, but i am sure there was a chemical irritant used and i was hit by a nonlethal projectile. So that is the opposite of my experience. Rep. Neguse do you have concerns that have journalists or others who were there, if they had not shared photos of empty oc and cs canisters of what occurred, we may not know the truth . I. Brace in that instance, guess we would be relying on firsthand accounts. Also, in our recording, our video, you can hear the use of automatic weapons, which goes to what i am saying. Rep. Neguse it underscores why this hearing is so important, folks who have firsthand accounts of what happened late last month. I want to register my displeasure with the lack of witness from the executive branch testifying before our committee today. I read, with much respect to my good friend from colorado, i did read the letter that was sent to the chairman from the department of the interior dated june 24, 2020. Does intimateter an expectation that the executive branch witness would be provided a separate panel, that is not the reason for the declination to appear before this committee. Justifications a that they are too busy and therefore will it will consider appearing later, in midtolate july. I wonder if the panel has thoughts. Do you think it is reasonable for this committee to expect to hear from the assistant chief or another relevant witness from the executive branch . Absolutely p i think this committee should ascertain a number of facts. First, the fact that the courts isolate. A number of these facts will be determinative in any review of this conduct. That includes what we used at the scene. This became a colloquial versus technical debate as to what constitutes tear gas. If the park polices later statement was correct, the impact on an individual will be the courts often group them same. It is an irritant. Courts often group them together as to when you can use this. I personally believe that this committee drills down, its going to find itself more and more focused on that twilight period when you see that charge. That is a charge, a line charging. The question is, was that warranted in that circumstance . I agree with you, professor turley, with the respect for this committee to engage in that inquiry. I confess, i am less than optimistic we will have as much success as perhaps the judicial system while will in deposing these administration witnesses. Because the track record of the terms of itss in ability to get the executive branch witnesses to appear before the congress is less than the secretary of defense is stellar. The secretary of defense is refusing to appear before the Armed Services committee to talk about this particular set of issues and the secretary of state who declines to go before the foreign appear Foreign Affairs committee. We had an exchange previously eight, nine, some odd months ago before the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment process about obstruction of congress and the lack of any ability to again get these witnesses before the legislative branch. I fear, i must say because as i read this letter it is part and parcel to this pattern that the administration has pursued relentlessly since the days i was sworn into congress. I would hope my colleagues on the others of the iowa join us in our effort to get to the bottom of it and have folks from the administration testify. Because invariably and as of you have referenced in the past, the administrations change. We have elections. At the end of the day, theyre ry well may there ve be another administration and congress hoping to seek witnesses from that administration i would hope they could treat these issues with the respect they deserve so with that i yield back mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields. The gentleman yields. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. I have been here since the beginning. From important to hear witnesses. I have been shocked by the unrestrained use of force by federal Law Enforcement agencies. We are here today because one of those agencies, the park police violated its own use of force policy from following President Trumps directive to clear Lafayette Square. Mr. Chairman your staff has a , copy as the u. S. Park police updatedf force policy, november 1, 2019. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter that into the record right now. Without objection, so ordered. Ms. Degette thank you, mr. Chairman. This governs the conditions with which the park police has use of force inappropriate. Miss brace and mr. Mcdonald i want to ask you about this policy and whether they were consistent with what you saw on july 1. I would appreciate yes or no answers if you are able. The policy which was updated last fall said, quote, an officer is expected to employ only the minimum level of force necessary to control the situation. Situation. Youbrace, i believe testified you have covered a number of demonstrations, is that correct . Ms. Brace yes. In your experience, being at that protest, did you view the u. S. Park employees and other Law Enforcement officers employing only the minimum level of reasonable force necessary to control the situation . Ms. Brace no, i dont. Ms. Degette the policy also says mr. Mcdonald, you testified you served in the military. I assume you have seen people using force. I want to ask you, did you feel the u. S. Park police and other Law Enforcement employed only the minimum level of force necessary to control the situation . I am sorry, sir. I cannot hear you. Mr. Mcdonald i believe they used Excessive Force. Thank you. didbrace and mr. Mcdonald, you see a situation where police force seemed to be required and they stopped it once it did not seem to be required . Ms. Brace no, not that i saw. Ms. Degette mr. Mcdonald . Mr. Mcdonald . . Can you repeat the question ms. Degette the policy says, an officer my question is did , either of you see a situation where they seemed to need to use the force and then they stopped it once it was required anymore . Was not required anymore . Mr. Mcdonald no, i did not. Ms. Degette the policy also says, an officer shall, if possible, first attempt to throughhe situation advice, warning, verbal persuasion, Tactical Communication and conflict negotiation techniques. Did you see the police doing anything like that . 01 59 22 that . Ms. Brace no, i did not. Mr. Mcdonald no, i did not. Ms. Degette finally, the policy says, the goal of deescalation tactics is to gain the voluntary compliance of a subject when appropriate and consistent with personal safety to reduce or eliminate the necessity to use force. Did you see the police doing that . Ms. Brace no, i did not. Ms. Degette how about you, mr. Mcdonald . Mr. Mcdonald no, i did not. Ms. Degette did you see anybody at that particular protest not complying voluntarily . Mr. Mcdonald no, maam. Ms. Brace not from what i saw. Ms. Degette where each of you complying voluntarily . Mr. Mcdonald yes, i was. Ms. Brace yes. Ms. Degette mr. Chairman, just looking at the u. S. Park polices use of force policy, it seems to me they were violating their very own policies which is what the purpose of this hearing is and i find it very telling the administration did not even show up to explain any of this today. I want to take one more minute of personal privilege and tell you how proud i am of you, as a woman of god, to stand up for the rights of Peaceful Protesters. I, presbyterian in denver and my church is very involved with the black lives Matter Movement and we are involved in the protests. We think that is part of the very fabric of christianity and the very fabric of america. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Let me recognize mr. Clay. Mr. Clay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and observance of what you saw that day. My wife and i happen happened to be in our living room, watching incredulously. Especially after attorney general barr went out to the square to survey and then ordered the clearing of that square. How outrageous. How unamerican. Just so somebody could take a photo op. Let me ask you, mr. Mcdonald. Let me first of all thank you for your service to this country and for your activism. Given your testimony from what you saw on that day, did you see any protesters acting violently or any demonstrators throw projectiles at lawenforcement . Mr. Mcdonald no, i did not see anyone throwing anything or acting violent. Rep. Clay thank you. Like me, for a black man who served his country, when you hear this administration and president say time after time that he does a lot for the black community, then to be treated like a hostile, what goes through your mind . It fits the rhetoric where a black man always feels persecuted. It is for a just reason. We have an administration trying to clear me for exercising my First Amendment rights. For that. Thank you lets put politics aside. Does the president s narrative seem consistent if peaceful , demonstrators cannot peacefully protest the Racial Injustices we see and face on a daily basis . 02 03 11 i think daily basis . Lastcdonald i think the 10 protests have been peaceful. Stuffk those rioters and was an isolated incident. 90 of the protests i have been to, or 100 i have been through, have been positive but 90 i , seen on tv have been positive. Rep. Clay having a military background, do you consider the training of those Law Enforcement personnel that you came up against on june 1 to be in a posture of a warrior or guardian . Mr. Mcdonald warrior. Rep. Clay thank you. Ms. Brace, have you covered other protests where you have experienced lawenforcement treating media in a similar , to your experience, in black lives matter square . Ms. Brace no, i have not. Rep. Clay as has already been mentioned, this administrations story around what happened that day and why it happened keeps changing. When you hear the administration explanations, what goes through your mind as a journalist . Ms. Brace i am keen to observe what is happening, not speculate on why. All i can tell you is on that day on june 1, the plan seemed to change. We were expecting the curfew to be enforced at 7 00 p. M. And it was enforced at 6 30 p. M. Rep. Clay during your broadcast you mentioned that the police were being indiscriminate and did not seem to change their actions after you stated that you were members of the media and do you think at all that the treatment of you was intentionally directed at you due to your status as a journalist . Ms. Brace i cannot say whether we were targeted because we were working press. I feel it was clear we were working press. Even after my cameraman was assaulted and it was acknowledged clearly we were pressed, i was hit by a trench as i was trying to move away. Rep. Clay did you say you got hit by a projectile . Ms. Brace i am not sure if it was a projectile, a rubber bullet. Rep. Clay mr. Mcdonald, did you get hit mr. Mcdonald yes, a plume of tear gas exploded below my feet and they threw a flash grenade at my ankles to the point it exploded. Asked felt the pellets, i the officer on film, what did you throw at me . Whatever you through, didnt blow up on the ground and asphalt hit me . It made a loud sound. I felt like something hit me and i thought it was the asphalt. It was that powerful it blew the asphalt up. Rep. Clay my time is up, but this is not how civilians in this nation should be treated who are trying to exercise their Constitutional Rights. I defy anyone on this panel to refute that. That, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you let me know recognize ms. Dingell. Your five minutes. L thank you p i want to thank you both for having this hearing. I think it is important to say, i do not think any person on either side of this ill aisle thanks violence is never ok at a protest. I dont think you see people here saying that. Some of our republican colleagues. I have been the woman who you could not force out of her house three weeks ago would have been at 17 marches and protests in two weeks because the people of my communities organized them. Some are areas that do them all the time and some are ones that do them none of the time. The first ones that went downriver, most were organized by young people. One of my Police Chiefs immediately said to me, what are you doing here . Not because he was upset that i was there, because he thought i was going to city hall. They were trying to not let the young people see, with bricks, or arrive to car trouble. I know which organization they are with, but throughout these my Police Chiefs have walked , with the young people and they had been alert and have worked together and i have had two bad incidences out of the 17, one where a woman in a car through us, and the second where young people heard the word that they should never hear once and i was called a white not pleasant words. But our police chief handled this. I think that is what we want to talk about today because i think , americans have the right to peacefully assemble and protest. It is a fundamental right of our democracy. How these get handled is really important. We have to ask these questions because we dont have a witness today. We have to make sure freedom of speech i am proud of some of the young people. Windowsont want to see in areas deliberately broken. My Law Enforcement knew i was being targeted by some people. I was not going to let them that stop me, either. I want to ask questions of mr. Mcdonald and ms. Brace. Mr. Mcdonald, some of my colleagues across the aisle attempted to use the actions of a few protesters at a separate protest against Police Brutality to depict the peaceful protest that you were part of. I want to be clear, mr. Mcdonald, did you personally witnessed violence arriving prior to the Police Attacking the protesters on june 1 . Mr. Mcdonald no, maam. Ms. Brace, would you agree with mr. Mcdonald . Did you witness violence activity to the sort of events prior to the Police Moving against the protesters . Ms. Brace no, i did not. Rep. Dingell during these attacks you would announce yourself as part of the media, correct . They went after your cameraman. Even if they did not see your media credential, which people have raised questions, it was pretty obvious that your cameraman was a member of the media, correct . Ms. Brace absolutely. Rep. Dingell can you talk about the damage you and your cameraman sustained in the damage or equipment took . Harderce he sustained a hit to his stomach. The camera was punched, wished which pushed it into his face. He was hit with a nonlethal projectile in the back of the neck. I was struck across the back hit in thechion and legs with nonlethal bullets, hit quite directly in the backside. That was my most significant injury. In terms of our gear, the camera was damaged when he was punched. And the backpack was damaged when i was hit. Wasour live device several thousand dollars. Mr. Mcdonald, you mentioned you to xers and video during the attack. Why did you figure it was important to document everything happening . Mr. Mcdonald i believed it was a Pivotal Point in history to be out amongst those diverse protesters. Secondly, for my safety. Trump made the threat of using weapons on us. I really took it literally. That was the second main reason why i recorded. Rep. Dingell my time is up, but thank you all of you for being here. And the bishop, too. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me express my gratitude to this morning. Ses to the Ranking Member as well. During this difficult moment in our history, we are grieving more than a senseless murder of george floyd. This is not new, the outrage is not new. Yeare living the 400 legacy of the intergenerational trauma from slavery, lynchings and jim crow era and Police Brutality. Racial injustice in our nations country still costing us innocent lives. What we are seeing today is the result of historic injustices that have kept People Living in poverty in communities where schools have fewer resources and where people live less long due to lack of health care coupled with aggressive policing. Earlier this month organizers and protesters were attacked while demonstrating against Police Brutality in d. C. This hearing brings that out. Facing protest over the use of force, the park Police Responded with more force. You fornald, thank being here. In your testimony you shared you gas, alsoaining in cs known as tear gas, during your time in boot camp. Could you describe the conditions under which you were instructed to use tear gas during our training, and how that compares to what you witnessed at Lafayette Square . Mr. Mcdonald rep. Garcia in mr. Mcdonald in boot camp it was controlled. There were medics and it was in a safe environment. What i witnessed at Lafayette Square was Excessive Force, without any medical people around. They knew people would be injured. It was done because we were in boot camp, a controlled environment. Prepared for that, protesters are not soldiers. In your training, the u. S. Park police did not follow proper protocols, in your opinion . Mr. Mcdonald that cant be a necessary way to remove people. Rep. Garcia thank you. Black and brown communities are ravaged by the deadly virus and an unprecedented economic crisis. Now, they are being terrorized by militarized police. The militarization of Law Enforcement and the unjustified use of force against organizers and Community Members mustend. Must end. Tear is a chemical weapon. It should never again be used against demonstrators, especially not during a pandemic. I heard stories of organizers suffering traumatic injuries at the hands of Law Enforcement. Or, like mr. Mcdonald who was aote, met with tear gas and flash bang which exploded with shrapnel. That is why my colleagues and i introduced a bill to stop the escalation of such Police Tactics against peaceful demonstrators and bans the use of chemical weapons in our streets. Bottom line is, the rightful demonstrations that we are witnessing in the wake of the killing of george floyd, Breonna Taylor and other black lives taken by the police should never have been met with the deadly force from Law Enforcement and u. S. Park police and military forces forcibly removed, Peaceful Protesters with chemical irritants and for what . For the president s photo op . I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Soto forognize his questions and his time. Sir . You, mr. thank chairman. The whole nation witnessed video showing President Trump, white house justice and defense officials, authorized use of force to remove Peaceful Protesters. Lafayette square park and the adjacent pennsylvania avenue, an area in front of the white house, is our nations public square. This is a traditional area for americans to express our First Amendment rights, infringement of which deserves heightened scrutiny. It was particularly disgraceful that these tactics were used so the president could engage in a photo op. Many have testified the incident occurred one hour before curfew. I do agree with other members of this committee that city officials should be wary about creating curfews of otherwise peaceful protest. These dictated curfews often create unnecessary conduct between police and Peaceful Protesters. We know based on the testimony this was not the case in this instance. I want to welcome professor turley to the committee it i would be remiss if i did not say this harkens me back to 14 years ago in your Supreme Court class at gw law and i want to thank you for being such a great teacher. Some evidence suggests the crowd was cleared for purposes of a photo op, other evidence suggests the president wanted to display a show of strength after damaging coverage of him retreating to a bunker a few days earlier. Im concerned the president may have specifically intended to intimidate or silence political speech or simply that he did not care about the injuries that would occur as a result of his actions. Those last minutes that you focused on before they begin clearing the area if president , trump or other responsible officials harbored either specific intent to intimidate or silence political speech rather speech, or had reckless disregard for the safety and First Amendment rights of protesters would either of those states of mind be relevant in determining violation of their First Amendment rights . Mr. Turley thank you very much for that question. This is my ideal, to have a former student asking me a question. Looking at two councils on on either side of the chair that are both gw grads and a photographer that is a gw student. I could not be in a more happier spot. To answer your question, most certainly intent does matter. My testimony first starts out with the motivational question. I think, we will get more salient information with the inquiry of congress and one of the things i would look at, it seems to me there is evidence 48 plan was put into place hours before in terms of developments. It was approved in the morning and in order went out at 2 00. It does not mean, even if those facts are true, it does not prove whether the president s photo op played a role in the size of the perimeter, the decisions to move people. Those are legitimate questions. If attorney general barr cleared that area for the purpose of the photo op despite knowing him for , many years and being a graduate of our law school, i would immediately call for him to step down, because that would be an outrageous use of power. The answer is yes. If this was done to intimidate people, this would be a serious problem. The Supreme Court said, protests are classically political speech. That is why the courts have been so protective. I think your question is a relevant one and more importantly, we can get those answers as we get more of these facts confirmed from congress. Thank you, professor turley. Mr. Mcdonald, thank you for your service to our country and on behalf of the United States government i would like to apologize for the brutal treatment you received by your own government. We recently passed the justice in policing act of 2020 and it stops militarization of police by stopping a federal program that gives local Police Surplus military equipment. As a veteran familiar with the differences between the objectives of military and police how important is it to , stop the demilitarization of our police force . Mr. Mcdonald it is very important. The military is therefore certain reason. City police are there for a reason. We have to distinguish who does what. And Park City Police police freedom to act as a military unit is not good for any protest on the floor. Rep. Soto thank you. Ms. Brays, on behalf of the United States government i would , like to apologize for your brutal treatment by this government. I am appalled by how you and mr. Mcdonald retreated. We have seen increasing violence against members of the press in the United States what do you as of late. What do you suggest needs to happen to better protect members of the press in the United States . Ms. Brace again, i would not presume to tell the American People how to run their government or police force. I think the needs to be enforced First Amendment in that the media needs to be able to work freely and without fear, especially from lawenforcement. Rep. Soto finally, bishop budde, you were installed on november 12, 2011 so youve had a lot of extremes with Lafayette Square. How often do you see people protesting in Lafayette Square . Bishop budde i dont know that i could count, but as i said before, people gather and it is a common sight to protest. I think they are there every day. Rep. Soto thank you i yelled back. Let me recognize mr. Hartford horsford. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I know all too well the pain and loss that the black community has faced because of Law Enforcements abuse of force. What took place in Lafayette Park stands against our nations ideals. Peaceful protesters were exercising their First Amendment Constitutional Rights. Unfortunately, the president , in an effort to have an illadvised and unnecessary photo op decided , to upend the First Amendment right of Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette Park by using teargas and firing rubber pellets on them. It is important lawmakers can look outside their windows and see and hear protesters. They are letting their government know that change must occur. Instead this president acted like an authoritarian dictator and used Excessive Force so he could stage a threeminute photo opt at the historic st. Johns Episcopal Church. This is simply wrong. As a black man, as a father of three children, two young boys, i know we must find more Common Ground and enact real reforms across this nation and for my home state in nevada. We need to continue to have honest dialogue about race and other injustices and more importantly act boldly for the change we need throughout our society. Unfortunately, those actions taken by the president at Lafayette Square to not bring us closer to solving these problems. In fact, they make it worse. Mr. Mcdonald, can you tell us what brought you to the protest and what was your general feeling about your fellow protesters . Where they peaceful . Did you see anybody doing anything different other than exercising their First Amendment rights . My mcdonald i was there for First Amendment rights, protesting inequity and injustice. Everyone i saw from 6 00 until the moment they attacked us was peaceful. I did not see anything being thrown. No one attacked the officers. What was your first reaction when police in riot gear used tear gas on you and your fellow Peaceful Protesters . Mr. Mcdonald confusion. It was 30 minutes before curfew. You wonder, why are they doing this, what happened . Something has to drastically happen for that the change to a peaceful or three seconds it turns into a military unit. It was confusing. Rep. Horsford ms. Brace, seeing the way you were treated in that video was shocking to say the least. You were clearly identified as a member of the press. You are in an area designated for members of the press, yet those officers were completely indiscriminate in their attack. In your years of experience as a reporter, have you or your cameraman ever been treated this way before . Ms. Brace no. Rep. Horsford when you set up to work that day, did you assume you would be safe from violence at the hands of Law Enforcement . Ms. Brace yes, absolutely. Rep. Horsford . . Why ms. Brace because of the First Amendment and the respect of the media in a democracy. Rep. Horsford can you tell me more about the misconduct of Law Enforcement you saw as a reporter, and what happened at Lafayette Square the first time that you have experienced this . Ms. Brace as you saw on the video we were there to report on what was happening, expecting the curfew to happen at 7 00 p. M. Then that line of police came through early, suddenly and quickly. We went to the side. There is nothing that would have prevented them walking past us easily. They turned on us and we were both physically assaulted. Itself, of the protest i would say it was largely peaceful. It was different from the night fire andhen there was looting. There was nothing of the sort on june 1. The reverendbudde. Reverend budde. Can you talk about the teachings of episcopalian faith and policents use of against Peaceful Protesters . What was your reaction when the current president used the bible for the sole purpose of a photo op . Bishop budde as i stated before, there is nothing in scripture or the teachings of our church that would condone violent actions of state officials against innocent protesters. Antithetical to the teachings of the church. When i saw the president hold the bible in front of the church, i thought he had usurped a spiritual message, or was claiming is spiritual a Spiritual Authority he did not have, to bolster a message counter to our teachings and jesus and his way of love. Rep. Horsford thank you. I yelled back. Thank you. Great. Thanks. To our witnesses thank you. Im devastated this hearing is needed, and it is absolutely needed. I see massive pain in this country. For many this pain comes from the nervous uncertainty of living in a world dominated by a deadly, highly contagious virus. The last four months have shown many of us what it is like to live in a society where you dont get right to rule. So, black americans have known [inaudible] the descendents of a people kidnapped into slavery and they are a product of a racial policies and systematic, not just southern jim crow laws but federal policy as well,. Black americans were forbidden from claiming land in the homestead act, and excluding them from the largest and most permanent way of growing wealth in our american history. They were effectively excluded from the new deal and the g. I. Bill which can be argued as the foundation for our american middle class. They were in many cases still are legally allowed to be profiled against by a Police Officer who would use that power to investigate or intimidate far too often and a life. End a life. And now thanks to the compendium they are getting sick and dying from covid at a much higher rate than white americans. Black americans are sadly use to living in a society that where for the longest time they did not get the right to rule. I am a 70yearold white man, and i will never know what that feels like but i am broken hearted and as a member of our society i share some response ability for the pain black americans feel. Let me begin my questions to express them first to the bishop, did i pronounce your last name correctly . Yes. What does christianity teach us to do . To seek restitution, forgiveness and at all times of mercy because we are all fall short of god. Thank you. In Lafayette Square on june 1, repeatedly across the country they are begging for an end to to this pain. And as a fellow believer it seems this is the moment. We should be asking and doing what we can to eliminate pain into the future. Mr. Mcdonald, can you remind me again, are these Peaceful Protesters [inaudible] . We were treated with weapons of war and treated like criminals and treated like we were breaking the law and we were excising our First Amendment right. I think that as we have learned today, nothing is about nothing in this response sounds compassionate to me. Nothing about this response sounds like a teaching we have applied in any state that would guide anyone of us, nothing in that response sounds forgiving to me. As one who has practiced my faith, i think that it is part of some of the fundamentals that we all share in making certain we are a just and loving society. So, i deeply implore our nations s president and any of the leaders to refer to some of the scripture, and certainly scriptures found in that book that he held outside of the church that day. I would encourage him to revisit the verse that reads, what does the lord require of you . Love justice, love kindness and to walk humbly with your god. I think that is instruction for all of us. Mr. Chair, we have got to do better. Let us heed the words of micah and as a nation let us resolve to go forward, to build a fair nation, and do the hard work of loving justice, denouncing violence, and most certainly walking humbly. To walk firmly on the path where we all respect a more perfect union. With that, i yield back. Again, i think our witnesses for being here today and adding what they did and providing that clarity that we are all looking for. I do yield back. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, sir, for, i may say a profound and important comment you made. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses and i appreciate it very much. My colleagues through a series of two half hours you have been here you have asked a lot of the , questions that were important to me. I think that we heard a lot of Important Information today about the attack on the protesters at Lafayette Square on june 1. We did not hear of people from the administration. We invited acting police chief monahan and we jumped through hoops as different requirements were presented to us in terms of his coming forward. And then the latest one was that it was too busy and there would be a conflict because of potential litigation down the road. And it would have been very helpful to have him here or a representative of the department so we can understand which version of the truth they have offered, and they have offered several since june 1, and to decide which is the correct one. Make no mistake so that nothing is hidden from the emergent people that it is out there and transparent to the American People. Our responsibility is to provide that oversight. One thing also as well is we look at what my colleagues said today, and the analysis from my respected republican colleagues,. The main witness, depends and the analysis as i got it depends on the administrations telling the truth. I think that would create skepticism and doubt among Many Americans at this point. We also heard from our colleagues about a lot of things that did not happen that day. The assumption is the protesters at Lafayette Square were dangerous by association, and that is not the way it should have been approached. Prejudging a group of people on unrelated actions, actions separate from them of others might be the heart of the problem here. Maybe the protesters had to deal with this in a bipartisan way, i remember the calls for deescalation, restraint, when we wereence dealing with the takeover of parks facilities by armed individuals. And when the struggle over the bundy family, and their refusal to pay fees on grazing lands, and the actions of the federal government to redeem that. I hope that is a bipartisan attitude of restraint, and not create a double standard in which because perhaps the message in this one is not what you wanted to hear in Lafayette Square. Just like the message that they had when the bundys armed themselves, i did not want to hear but that is what the police chose and thats what the u. S. Marshal chose and the fbi chose, restraint, patients or long patients p patience i may add. I also want to talk about leading up to this hearing a lot of the discussion about issues having to do with what led up to this and thats why i made my point about people should not be associated with they been going on in that the protesters are the enemy and that they are not american citizens exercising their right under the First Amendment. That is about the statutes and about the isolated series of violence. Let me guarantee you, ive been tound long enough and tbeen enough protests and arrested for civil disobedience myself to know and to be able to say that the tail is not wagging the dog on this movement going on in america right now. The dog is in charge and at the at is the American People. And those outlier issues of opportunism whether appropriating the black lives movement for either a narrow ideological point or a criminal point should not be reflected onto what people are trying to say out in america. I also felt that this has opened up many things, and the irony of ironies. You have who trump has recommended to lead the other bureau of land management, and he did an oped piece that said the black lives Matter Movement is built on terrible lies. And goes again to make those associations. He will be in charge of the biggest landmass agency that we have in this country. , if the senate approves. I think these contradictions and the fact that we are apt to believe and that the administration wont come forward and allow a full questioning and a full disclosure and transparency of all the information related to what happened june 1, i think leads us to continue to press for the issue, not only of accountability but every form but of reform with our Service Police that has to change. And hopefully this hearing and you as witnesses, thank you so much. Members thank you for asking questions and get plenty of time to return those as well. I appreciate your time. I appreciate, i appreciate all the Witnesses Today. I ask unanimous consent to add one more letter into the record which was sent by the secretary to you inviting you also to visit. I look forward to working with you on a bipartisan manner because the administration did have an option and a willingness to come here and talk about their point of view. We need to make sure that as they are that is accommodated in the future. Just one less thing. Be careful about when you talk about the experience in the west which was mostly done in a nonviolent way because it did leave one of the citizens of a my state dead in the snow. On that uplifting note, not let me adjourn the meeting and thank you very much. I appreciate it. We all do. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [indistinct conversations] cspans washington we take yourry day calls live on the air on the news of the day and discuss policy issues that impact you. Tuesday morning, princeton beginity, the new book again. And the state of Race Relations after the death of george floyd. Ohio republican congressman, writing member of the Small Business Committee Talks about the pandemics effects on small economics, and recovery efforts. Watch washington journal, and be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, Text Messages and tweets. Live tuesday on the cspan networks, the house returns at 9 00 a. M. To debate on a 1. 5 trillion infrastructure package. Cspan2, the Senate Returns at 10 00 a. M. Eastern and continues work on the fiscal year 2021 defense policies and programs bill. At 10 00 a. M. On cspan3, a Senate Committee on reopening the economy and starting school safely. Witnesses include dr. Anthony fauci my head of the National Institute of health, cdc director robert redfield, and dr. Stephen hahn of the fda. At 12 30 p. M. The house financial Services Committee hears from Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell and treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin at an oversight hearing on operations of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve pandemic response. Website,y on her cspan. Org, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looks at covid19 and International Pandemic preparedness present response efforts at 10 00 a. M. The house subcommittee on health here is from medical professionals on mental health. That is at 11 00 a. M. During his coronavirus briefing, California Governor Gavin Newsom discussed the recent spike of positive cases. He announced additional funding to support those areas impacted by the spike, and said guidance later in the week will offer clarity on safety in bars and restaurants as well as protocols when visiting nursing homes. Gov. Newsom good afternoon, everybody