Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing On U.S. Park Police Clearing Protesters From Lafayette Square In... 20240712

Were behaving peacefully thank you very much. The committee on Natural Resources will come to order. The committee is meeting to hear testimony on the questions of the u. S. Park police june 1 attack on the Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette Square. Under Committee Rules, oral Opening Statements and the ranking minority member or his designee. This will allow us to hear from the witnesses sooner and helps members ge keep to the schedule. Therefore i ask unanimous consent of the members o memberg statements be made a part of this hearing records submitted by 5 p. M. Today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Without objection the chair will also declare a recess subject to the call of the chair. As described in the notice of documents and motions will be submitted to the electronic. Additionally please note members are responsible for their own microphones and as with the in person meetings members can be muted only to avoid inadvertent background noise. Anyone present in the hearing room today must wear a mask covering their mouth and nose. The speaker of the house and sergeantatarms acting upon the recommendation require face coverings for old indoor gatherings over 15 minutes in length such as this committee meeting. Accordingly to maintain decorum and protect the safety of members and staff, the chair will not recognize any member in the room to speak who is not wearing a mask. According to the house rule 17 and Committee Rule three the chairman has the rights to give recognition to remember that wishes to speak or offer a motion. This includes the responsibility to maintain decorum. It should be noted that is permitted by the sergeantatarms through his guidance exceptions for the members facilitate lipreading for those that are deaf or hard of hearing. If those that experienced technical problems should inform the staff immediately and with that i will now recognize myself for the Opening Statements. Today we continue examining the park police to remove protesters around the area of Lafayette Square. In a hearing last month witnesses told us Law Enforcement officers saw Peaceful Protesters and journalists without warning. We heard that the clergy forced their own property in the photo op calling a sacrilege. Many questions remain unanswer unanswered. Who gave the order and why, who authorized the police to assault nonviolent protesters, was a premeditated plan as the officials described it, was there a plan. Meaning if they refuse to testify, so im very glad the acting chief of the u. S. Park service is here with us today. We are also fortunate to welcome major demarco to the police on july 1. I think you for your service to the country which includes the participation here today. As the events have shown it was a test run for the crackdown by the chavez administration. It did occur on june first with was from the administration is doubling down its response to unarmed civilians in cities like portland and despite the demand what we saw with civilians being tucked up without probable cause and in albuquerque new mexico where the president has threatened to use similar tactics. This raises a crucial question motivated by partisan hostile to be directed from above to those demanding justice for george floyd and so many other black men, women and children and a very Diverse Group of people in the First Amendment rights from washington, d. C. Featuring. My friend made fu one of his lat public appearances at the scene of the park Police Protesters only six days before the june 1 incident. He spent his life doing what most of u us that was the right thing fighting for fair and equal treatment so i believe it is our duty as americans and human beings to ensure others fighting do not suffer the same brutality mr. Lewis have to indooendor in the quest for fais for all people. I think we can do better and we can be better and that is what we are here to do. Even in todays title park Police Attacked Peaceful Protesters included chris. The assertion these were Peaceful Protesters completely ignoring the facts and there is vandalism and assaults on Police Officers in the days leading up to june 1. This is even acknowledged by the second panel with ms. And written testimony that states the witness learned federal Law Enforcement officers and secret service had sustained injuries. However, todays hearing title. I was confident these would remain because the one witness who might be able to answer them wasnt at a previous hearing into the minority knew that and continued with the hearing for show. Im glad to see you here today. We are honored to have you and appreciate the testimony for the committee. You might not have all the answers today, but we will probably be able to provide some of the facts that we were missing from the previous hearing on the topic. So we are grateful for that. My hope is they will be able to see beyond the scope the democrats are bearing these actions and establish the truthful history of what happened on that day. For example we need more details about the warnings that were provided and the opportunity to protesters were given to disperse in the last hearing they the witness claimed there were no warnings indicate when collins said park police is now warning protesters to leave. Theyve given three warnings over a loudspeaker and that was 6 32 on june 1. So who are we to believe. We cant talk about the events in a vacuum. It must be viewed on a larger context. What plans were made prior about expanding the perimeter. How did the levels of violence and destruction we should also compare the scenarios of Lafayette Park to other protests that have occurred in the city. We have a number of examples from the march just to name a few. The difference between those events and that of Lafayette Square are the acts of violence and destruction. While the predetermined narratives and other events occurring throughout the nation outlines the story of the Law Enforcement squashing rights, the reality of the situation is quite different. The agents act to secure the area and restore peace thinking reactive measures after the acts of violence and destruction. The true culprits responsible for performing the peaceful protests are vandals and rioters and benefactors that hijacked an Important National conversation to push their agenda of violence and disorder. And those who should cast as the villains in the plot. Those that ignore the mall and create an unsafe environment for Peaceful Protesters and Law Enforcement alike. They are responsible for limiting the ability of others to express their thoughts and opinions. Although i did not believe that this is the closing act of the political drama. Perhaps this is the story of the plot or the committee focuses on the facts instead of political points. And to answer questions about the decisions that are made on june 1 and with that, i will yield. Now we will turn to the first panel hes been with the park police and Law Enforcement from over 22 years. Thank you very much for being here today. I was reminded of this under the Committee Rules you must limit your statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. The chair thinking the chief for being here with us today recognizes mr. Monahan for his testimony. The floor is yours. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member bishop and members of the committee, my name is Gregory Monahan and im the acting chief for the park police. The United States park police is the oldest uniform federal Law Enforcement in the United States and provides Law Enforcement Services Including the protection of visitors and resources to designated National Park service areas. Primarily in washington, d. C. , new york city, and San Francisco metropolitan areas. Here in washington, that includes the National Mall and Lafayette Park on the north side of the white house and between 15th and 17th street northwest. Each year the United States park police facilitates demonstrations and special events in and around the district. To ensure the safety of the public peace demonstrations of partners and coordinates with numerous Public Safety and Protection Agencies within a National Capital area. In the days following the death of george floyd, videos from witnesses and tv became public and ultimately led to protesting cities throughout the United States and abroad. The district became a focal point for demonstrators and one of the most highly concentrated areas of protest was in and around Lafayette Park which is recognized as a public forum for speech and assembly. The park police is accustomed to managing unruly public demonstrations and spontaneous events as well as throughout the National Capital area. In these instances we have an obligation to protect the safety of the demonstrators, maintain law and order and keep Law Enforcement officers safe. Public use of Lafayette Park became a danger to Public Safety and was inconsistent with the preservation of National Park service resources. Violent demonstrations occurred between may 29 of june 1 and included project files aimed at Law Enforcement officers and putting bricks, rocks, substances, frozen Water Bottles, fireworks and two by four sections of lumber. Protesters were physically combated with Law Enforcement. The violent protesters injured 50 officers in the park police alone. The length of my officers were transported to area hospitals and three of them are ultimately admitted. The unprecedented and sustained nature of violence and destruction associated with the activities and Lafayette Park required and later saturday evening in may 31 the park police in consultation with their partners and secret service decided to temporarily restrict access to the park and the adjacent streets by ordering and installing fencing across the north side of Lafayette Park. Once we made the decision the installation was dependent on two factors. First w they are required to hae sufficient resources. Once it arrives on the ground assessment presented by the crowd and the installation. The park police face a significant amount of criticism on the heels of the observation however the installation on the nortnorth side of lafayette pars the key tactic that serves to deescalate the violent behavior of the ba actors. The violence dropped dramatically in that area the United States park police acted with restraint the decision to install as the furtherance of the commitment. Thank you and i look forward to answering questions the committee may have. Reminding the members of kabul with the limited question. The timeframe from George Floyds murder until june 1 and talked with Lafayette Park about the period between, your words, between 1890 and june 1. This committee is focused on the chronology matters. Are you suggesting some of these incidents by protesters occur on june 1 fax debate go . Yes sir, i am. We sustained violence from a number of ba factors in lafayete park and on eighth street. Can you provide the committee with documentation of that because that contradicts the firsthand evidence that they have including video evidence. Any request for any documents im happy to. We want to see everything youve got on that. Now did that happen before or after 6 35 p. M. When you are officers and others began advancing on the protesters . The level of violence we were suggested subjected to, the level of violence did it happen before 6 35 p. M. . I understand. The violenc violence we were sud to was that the entire operation. We really do want to see that evidence. You have been with the park police for a long time to you are surely familiar with the settlement your agency entered into after 13 years of litigation you ended up paying millions of dollars to almost 400 Peaceful Protesters that you had advanced on with forceful means and as a part of the legal settlement of Service Police was required to make very specific policy changes. Are you familiar with that settlement . I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record that settlement agreement. And the top of page eight, that requires the park police to update its procedure to provide all of the warnings to protesters to disperse, and there are for significant parts to that, legally enforceable commitment that your agency made. First, officers must be positioned in the rear of the crowd so they can hear the warnings are given before the police advanced. Second is the need to use sound amplification as needed, and a third, the need to warn the protesters they are in violation of the specific flaw. There is a substantive requirement is a part of that warning. Fourth, maybe most significantly for june 1, the arresting officers positioned in the rear of the crowd are required to give a verbal and or physical indication to the officers in the front who were giving the warning so that your officers can confirm that it was audible and that it had been heard by the protesters. For all owere all of these procs followed on june 1 . [inaudible] i just want to get your direct answer. You see every one of those procedures was followed. Im going to ask to play a video that we believe suggests otherwise, mr. Chief, so id like to ask the staff to play the clip entitled warning number one. On the loud speaker a voice cuts through the noise. The announcement appears to come from the southeast part of the park even on the frontlines of f the protest in footage refuted a post, the words are drowned out. Protesters turn to one another in confusion. Could you understand the warning recorded in the video, wasnt audible to you . [inaudible] you must have super human hearing because i dont think any of us could hear it and wouldnt you agree from our own eyes because he protesters who were clearly confused who didnt appear to be told that they were about to be advanced on and didnt appear to be told they were in violation of a specific law as the settlement indicates. Do you feel it is evidenced in the video footage . I think when you take into account video footage, this context, and based on other video that ive viewed from june 1, and specifically around this time frame when the first warning was given, throughout the first warning through the third morning, you can see a number of demonstrators leave the area and he had the warning that was given. We do look forward to getting the evidence that backs up your account of this. But from everything we have heard in everything w and everye seen, it sure appears as if the park Police Ignored their own legal requirements in the settlement to follow these procedures, almost as if they wanted the crowd to be confused so they could go in with maximum force, and perhaps appease a president who just hours earlier had urged to act that way. I yield back. But they recognize you for five minutes, sir. Thank you mr. Chairman and mr. Monahan for your testimony. This is about politics, and i apologize to you in the res andf the officers in the United States park police for having to endure a political attack. This i isnt the first hearing weve had on this and it probably wont be the last. If my colleagues across the aisle were concerned about police reform, i dont think that their colleagues in the senate would have described under tim scottsville as a token note. I dont think the speaker would have dismissed it as attempted murder or whatever word she used about senator scottsville. We are here today to find out the facts, not to play politics with a serious situation. My colleagues are supporting the funding the police and seem to have no problem with defacing public property. Wed all agree that americans are allowed to protest peacefully like the constitution says. So the question is were these peaceful protests or violent protests. Youve testified that 50 of your officers were injured. Can you describe some of those injuries . Yes, sir. Like i said in my Opening Statement, the officers were injured between may 29 and jun june 1. May 29 we had 13 officers were injured during violent protests at Lafayette Park in 1600 pennsylvania avenue. 11 of those were trauma related, to the head, upper body and lower body. One of those was sustained from the united is per Police Wearing his helmet here on the table. He was struck in the helmet by a brick that was thrown at him by a violent protester and you can see the damage that occurred to the left side of the helmet sitting here on the table. The officer was later hospitalized. To this day hes still not returned to work. On may 30, there were 37 injuries at the white house, 20 were for the u. S. Park police and those injuries were blunt trauma related her head, upper body and lower body. The most significant of which was an officer from the United States park police on the line at the north end of Lafayette Park and he was struck in the testicles by a protester threw a brick and struck him in the groin. He suffered a significant injury and just returned to work this past sunday. On may 31, we have 16 patient encounters, u. S. Park police personnel, those burp once injuries to the head, upper body and lower body and june 1 to get one injury one officer was punched in the face by a protester when we were clearing the street and he suffered a facial laceration. I find it hard to see how anybody could call that a peaceful protest. Was the protocol followed to give three warnings, and what kind of device with used to do that . The protocol was followed to give three warnings, the first was given and 6 23 p. M. There were three warnings given and they were given utilizing a longrange device called an lrad. I just want to get something straight fosomethings straight. Did attorney general barr clear the square . Did white house chief of staff mark meadows or the park police clear the square . No. Did anyone at the white house order to clear the square . No sir. Did secretary bernhard order to clear off the square . Dozer, he did not. It seems pretty cut and dry to me what happened. I wish that congress could work on renewing hope in america, on restoring the america that we love and work on overcoming this pandemic and rebuilding our future rather than continuing to drag issues like this through the mud when its clear my colleagues across the aisle do not want to work for solution. With so tha that i will yield b. The gentleman yields back. Now let me turn to the vice chair of the committee for the questions you may have. Thank you mr. Chairman and mr. Monahan. Id like to talk about the missing park Police Recordings from june 1. Mr. Monahan, to the park please communicate over the radio with other agencies regarding the orders and coordination of june 1 that they are talking about a . In terms of the radio transmission made by the United States park police, they were two other members of the United States park police. We have facetoface contact with agencies on june 1. So, just to be clear, the radio interaction communication was just between the park police and any other communications between other agencies was inperson . Yes maam. Okay. Is the standard procedure for the park police to record radio transmission between each other like this . Yes, standard procedure for every incident is to have a record of any radio transmissions. Can you explain to us why the radio transmissions should be recorded . Yes maam. If you go back to september of 2018, the United States park police were utilizing the system at the time. We were preparing to transition to a Digital Radio format. September 2018, we experienced a critical failure in our analog radio system. The transition to the digital format when the radio technicians were conducting this transference. Only our main radio channels configured to record. The administrative that we utilize such as june 1 wasnt configured to record at the time. So it wasnt configured to record at the time. Or the recordings of the police for the time took out between may 2019 june 2 at all . For our normal operations yes but not for the special event demonstration of the white house. And im sorry, why is that . When we transition to the Digital Radio system on the radio technicians that were setting up the system only set up the main dispatch channels to record. But they did not set out our administrative channel to record. So that was an error . Yes it was. Were there any notes or laws of the transmission that it was in a error in having the communications recorded . For any special event, a demonstration on june 1 we establish a written record or a written log of transmissions are utilized within the command to send out situational reports orr updates on email so that was done in this case. Can you provide any notes of the transmission to the committee, please . I would work with the departments Congressional Legislative Affairs on any quests. And is a regular practice to take such notes or does it only happen when you know the radio recording isnt working . Thats a good question. For large special events or demonstrations like the ha theyn june 1 in the days leading up to june 1, we establish a redundant process having the written log. Okay. So, is it standard procedure to record radio transmission but theres no recording of the radio traffic for june 1 which just happened to be the day the administration did a test run of the brutal crackdown on protesters we continue to see now across america and i would imagine having the recording when asked many of the questions that we and the public have at this moment. Yes maam and i think every incident should have a complete record. In this instance we have a written record. So you will provide a written record to the committee in your earliest convenience . Regarding the radio recording technology, you are saying it wasnt actually broken, it was just an error on the part of in making sure the recordings actually recorded so it wasnt set up that way. It wasnt really broken is the correct . That correct . We didnt recognize until they attempted to on june 10. When we were alerted to the fact that it was not configured to record, we corrected that. And im sorry, things fault was the error . If you go back to september the 2018, the radio technicians, it was an oversight on their part and debated not. As i said, every incident listed in the complete record. Okay. So, right now you have the radio recording is working is that what youre telling me . If we were to have a repeat of june 1, we would have the recording you could send over to us . Okay, thank you chairman. You are recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. You mentioned the longrange device was used. What is the range of the device when it comes to warning the crowd . Its been sometime since ive read the long range acoustic device but i want to say that its 600 meters. Worth of protesters in that range . We had it set up at the center and the northeast section and i would say we were within 45 meters of the protesters. So they were in range of the hearings. They also know pro toasters us t have the ability to leave an area. What forces of actions to the park police consider when discussing that issue . When implementing the plan, we moved the crowd from east to west and it was either not on 16th street to 17th in connecticut. That is the direction that the officers were pushing the protesters. Do with the movement from east to west, correct. Worth of protesters prevented from leaving the square . Know they were not. The various acts of violence that were thrown into the interface that were sustained was everything from frozen Water Bottles, bricks. We also know from intelligence reports there were calls to. There were also glass bottles, baseball bats on the way. Im curious from the times from then to now has there been any type of investigation to see whether or not there was any specific groups or a group involved in organizing office. The park police is coordinated with a number of our federal partners and followup investigations on some of the violence that we saw. We have been successful in gaining a number of arrest warrants when do you think that maybe determines . All of the intel gathered continues to the longer effort. There was a video circulated that shows jerry nadler an in te judiciary stating that many of these protests were in essence a myth instead of violence and protests. Would you agree with us . No sir i would not. I think based on the level of violence that we saw beginning on may 29 through june 1 this was one of the most violent protests that i had been a part of in my 23 years at the department. The occupied demonstrations from several years ago where the evidence is abundant to the vandalism and 51 injured officers and the reason that it couldnt sustain that is because i want to thank you for your service in that regard and maintaining this beyond we are appreciative of that. You are recognized, sir. Thank you mr. Chairman. The questions that i have are the reason for clearing the protesters i think you mentioned that reason is the area was needed to be cleared to create a new perimeter when was the decision made when this was supposed to go up . It was discussed saturday evening and sunday morning. Based on a number of factors, we knew we were likely going to have on monday a late report. It did arrive late monday in the afternoon at 3 p. M. The manager arrived in a threetime 230 employees arrived. The fencing arrived at 3 55 p. M. And then staged on 17th street by the United States secret service. As i spoke earlier it was the first of three warnings. The initial movement to clear the north side of the park and eighth street was commenced at 6 30 and concluded that 6 50. 6 55, the secret service escorted the trucks inside the white house area and staged them on the left side of Lafayette Park and they began to install defensive 2 30 and the buildout was completed at 12 50. Let me understand you said in this operation that its happening in the early evening given that you needed to do both the resources and the fencing to do this was there any discussion that we better start this process after the curfew or at night instead of in the evening when the crowd was going to be at its peak what is the standard of timing for setting up the security in the new provider . In this particular instance we were not necessarily operating on the timeline. We were operating on the need for logistical and ample resources to safely implement the plan and then having the fencing in place in terms of the curfew that wasnt something factored into the position making and if you look at the level of violence we were subjected to increased throughout the day and then as nightfall came upon us it increased even from that point on so any indication the night where we had the curfew it didnt appear likely the crowd was peacefully disperse. With me understand in his statement, agent demarco also mentioned that shortly after attorney general barr left Lafayette Square after conferring with the park police the inaudible warnings began shortly after the clearing with a fastpaced brush manner about 30 minutes later the president was having his photo op at about 7 05 a. M. Either the clearing was for a photo op or that is an amazing coincidence dont you think . I dont think its a coincidence. Over the previous three days and then again on june 1. In order to do that, the common practice is to install physical barriers or boundaries between protesters and Law Enforcement and the best way to do that is to install the sentencing im going to yield back but it strikes me as an amazing coincidence. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman a written testimony and the effect pretendin that affect defense did arrive on the scene until about 9 p. M. Can you confirm that the testimony and if not what time did the material arrives . The site manager arrived at a threetime 230. The first truck arrived at 5 15. But the staged 17th street pennsylvania avenue. They were escorted onto a the white house complex and 7 30 they began to build defense. Since the time the fence was put up, how many officers have been in her injured how long does it remain closed . Is taken down if Lafayette Park was closed down through the 31st of this month in the effort to restore and repair some of the damage that weve done. It seems clear to me that its effective in deterring, would you agree with that . Based on geography it was a meaningful the other good news that changed the tactic on our part to the further end of the installation there is across a portion of st. Johns church. Has there been any further damage or vandalism done to the church since it was erected around the church . Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge either. Who requested this to be erected . The concept or the idea of utilizing it as a conversation that we had between the u. S. Park police and counterparts of the usc grid service. And again, the discussion began saturday evening and sunday morning. According to your testimony, it was a key tactic that served greatly to reduce the violent behavior and the actors. And from your testimony here it was effective in accomplishing that Strategic Vision int and ae same time maintaining law and order. And weve got to protect the Law Enforcement officers. In this case and other cases how does it help to accomplish these obligations . It is a physical barrier and what we saw in the days preceding it, so the 29th, 30th and 31st, the barriers that we have between protesters and Law Enforcement in the park were two rows 84 feet high and numerous attempts at demonstrators jumping off the bike rack that said do not cross. To continue to be thrown in a subsequent with that it is a suitable theory or on Law Enforcement to be involved in the actual installation of the event and the National Guardsmen who were a part of the details. The Fencing Company itself installed. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back. The gentleman yields. But they recognize you for your questions. Who ordered this on june 1 . Im sorry, the second question . Who told them to advance . Were you onsite . Did you have any conversations on site . I did not. You didnt interact when you came out of the white house . I didnt have any interaction with them. That sounds totally logical to me. We were not operating on a timetable. It makes sense for you to beat until 7 p. M. I would respectfully disagree and i say that based on our experience the night before. What time is the injury that whole day was peaceful testimony until the clearing and therefore you initiated something before it occurred to you. What i stated earlier is lethal violence throughout the operational period. Im asking about june 1. When i was in the marin marine s and had to clear out the cities i had to react to what was happening that day. The next day i went out and ju june 1, by your testimony, you had largely Peaceful Protesters up until the time you tried to move them. All of our decisions on june 1 or based on the on the ground assessment and level of violence directed at Law Enforcement. But not on that day. You were telling me that you made the decisions june 1 what to do june 1 and decided it required a level of escalation because later on one person oncn they start moving through the crowd. My testimony is the obligation on june 1 was based on the effort to de escalate the violence and it was based on an effort to provide the safety. I agree that is a good move and was important. But de escalating the violence it doesnt mean sending men swinging their batons and using pepper spray or gas, whatever they claimed to be, 40 minutes prior. It doesnt make logical sense. You try to find the muffins to de escalate. There would be some backing at least maybe for the Washington Police department would have been the most logical sense but instead we have a weird scenario that you are telling me there was so much violence that they nobody was injured so you had to and it makes no sense. Its an Ongoing Investigation may be inappropriate for me to comment. Just to be clear your Police Officers they were not brought in from icer dhs . On june 1st we were operating under a unified command. Who were those that were assaulting and pushing forward on the protesters . No the other agencies that assisted with the north end of Lafayette Park. You have cleared those that had different standards and procedures for clearing . You treat your park police with one standard you know those other elements we are used to . Can you buy provide documentation for that . I will work with the Congressional Legislative Affairs of the department. You are recognized. The hearing today isnt so much that people were painting in the park to have a duty and an obligation to take an oath to defend the constitution. Yes or. Would you provide by the order . Can you repeat the question . If you are given in order for africanamerican women were banned from polling places would you abide by the order . Im not sure i understand your question. If you are given an order would you abide by that order . So the very First Amendment of the constitution to allow them to peacefully assemble. On june 1st there were peaceful demonstrators and bad actors. When we gave the first of three warnings one set third warning was given everyone on the north end of Lafayette Park was required to vacate the area we gave them avenues of exit. We will hear from the next witness. So there is no correlation at all with the president s photo op so where do you agree does the park need to be cleared for the president to take his photo op . Our goal that day. Did that part need to be cleared or to be vacated by any other citizen . We did not clear the park for the photo up. Thats not the question. Didnt need to be cleared . In your professional opinion. I know youre not secret service but it needs to be cleared for the president to march from the white house to Lafayette Square to take a photo in front of st. John square . Another person to answer that question. You have been around. I hope that you can appreciate that it stands to reason and that magically that area was cleared. And fencing had to go up. Because contractors were working overtime. s of our focus that day and the timing of that. That there is absently no correlation 0 percent some with the president have done when you have gone out there quick. I know if i can answer that question. We will hear from the next witness and with his oath to the constitution. When they are put into these situations when they are asked whether oath and duties to the constitution and then to put that into the untenable situation like that. I would not characterize the situation. You are recognized. This is like living in groundhog day in the alternative universe. And to get you to Say Something very different. So a quick question. A quick yes or no as a work to clear Lafayette Square where you intended of the mob at st. Johns church . Yes. Is at an exercise of First Amendment to burn down the church . No sir it is not. Interesting. So in Lafayette Square they were facing off violent anarchy is that spent the better part of several days . Yes or that is accurate. The world war ii memorial for all those who served fighting fascism damaging the Lincoln Memorial a tribute to a president who led a nation out of slavery. Turned on monuments around the city. Meanwhile attempting to push these anarchist away from the house they were pelted with Water Bottles and fireworks in the most vile and disgusting names directly to their faces. If they behave and to work in a tremendous professional manner. Now i have questions about the statues at Lafayette Square. It was cleared it was put up as a means to enhance security at the square. In the time how many officers have been injured. No injuries sustained by the park police since the fence was put up on june 15. Once again why does Lafayette Square remain closed . Currently it is close due to ongoing restoration efforts and Damage Assessment due to the damage of the statues and other areas of the park, was burned down in the days proceeding june 1st. Again. Doesnt allow you to desecrate or destroy and defame public property . No sir it does not. I keep hearing its a peaceful demonstration. Do you hear that also . And with that alternative universe what about st. Johns church the night before the square was cleared . Yes there is currently fencing around the front of the church. Hasnt been any further destruction. Not to my knowledge. According to the written testimony to serve to greatly reduce the violent behavior a bad actors that has dropped dramatically to protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators to maintain law and order to keep Law Enforcement safe how does it help to promote this obligations. How do they help you keep those obligations . Based on the previous days violence a longer we waited to install the fence we saw action violence throughout the day projectiles being thrown at officers, angry protesters and rioters to jump over the bike rack on the north side of the park from those that were on the ground that witness the previous days violence on that day is the aggression from the crowd that got even worst if we were not abiding by curfew that was the next step for deescalation. We want to make sure we protect citizens peacefully. Can you describe the typical of all the police played . We are to provide for the safety of those to peacefully assemble to protect resources and maintain law and order to ensure to continue uninterrupted and assure the safety of personnel. We are seeing anarchist and desecration hiding behind the people for Peaceful Assembly. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman i ask unanimous consent a New York Times article entitled park police had been accused of illegal searches and unreliable testimony. This is an article about mr. Monahan. These clips show the moments immediately before the Law Enforcement surge a half hour before the curfew went into effect Pay Attention if they are responding to physical threats from the crowd the speed and aggression in the weapons officer is used on the protesters can the Committee Staff please play the clips . I believe there is one more. And australian cameraman with the shield. Another officer is seen swinging a baton at reporters. Our time is limited so i will ask you to please answer these questions with a simple yes or no. Were the Police Officers assaulting a news crew . [inaudible] yes or no with a surging against the crowd and assaulting a news crew . Yes or no. Yes or no. Respectfully i cannot answer with a yes or no. Is it your intention they were not assaulting the news crew . The picture speaks a thousand words. Sure. And the video shows a moment in time as to the second video i will not comment. It is the Ongoing Investigation. Does the clip show any violence before the officers surged on them . Yes or no. Again i dont think there is a simple yes or no. Look at the first video. We all saw the video and we can acknowledge there was no such violence. The administration has contradicted itself on whether the alleged violence was the reason for the use of force. Other statements from attorney general attorney general barr said they can of the perimeter one block we have seen statements that Water Bottles were thrown. But obviously not a justification for such a response did you see officers show of protesters . I saw the video that you showed and it shows officers clearing the street. Thats a yes. We are getting somewhere. Did you see officers attack reporters one was the australian correspondent who testified at her last hearing. Even as they try to get away . Yes or no. Respectfully i will not comment. It was on the video that happened did you see officers throw or fire chemical munitions into the crowd . Yes i did. Did they throw flash balls or stinker into the crowd. Yes and we said we only use force of met with violence as of june 1st. Did we see that violence in those videos . Again, looking at a video. Not in the context of the video that you showed. That is a no. Are you willing to tell this committee and the American People that the force those officers used against the crowd was not excessive and unjustified . They use of force on june forced was in line with our policies and procedures. I heard you in your introduction say with tremendous restraint used but you stand by that statement based on the video we just saw this was tremendous restraint . Yes i do. To remind my fellow colleagues of the New York Times article june 18 and ask you to read it and with that i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman with the events of june 1st. My first question relates to the first video clip that mr. Hoffman had played at the beginning of the hearing have you seen any violence on the part the protesters in that clip . The first clip. It captures a moment in time you have to play it again. It was a Peaceful Assembly that we saw on that clip. You mentioned on june 1st 1 officer regretfully had to be treated not 50 as you stated previously over a several day. Do you know the circumstances of that treatment and what led to those injuries and to engage in violent interaction. Do you know approximately the size of the crowd that had assembled Lafayette Square. I would say it was less than 50000. But especially thats why representatives have joined me to with chemical agents beef with that pandemic. Do you believe in the First Amendment and peoples rights to organize peacefully . Yes sir. Of course. Do you believe people are reasonably upset over the death of george floyd be on the taylor and other black lives taken from Police Officers . Yes sir. Do you believe they have the right to take to the streets to protest communities of color . I believe individuals have the right to peacefully assembl assemble. So why are you on board with the eagerness to disperse the crowd when it was 30 minutes before the curfew was to take effect . They were well aware of by the time of this violent encounter in Lafayette Square . When we saw the video they were launching peaceful and then they appear before this committee. The head of the church referred to earlier said they were participating in peaceful actions and that included many gatherings of family members including children that were participating with their right to free speech. They did not use teargas on. To the second question yes there were people peacefully demonstrating with a number of bad actors. Once a three warnings were given everybody needed to vacate. Rules of engagement specifically prohibited the use of gas on june 1st utilize pepper ball and smoke canisters and also stinger balls. Thank you very much my time has run out. I yield back. Thank you from the president and Vice President and attorney general bar, you testified on june 29. No maam have you ever had conversations with the subordinate and told them not to cooperate with this investigation . No. To have a history of engaging with a Supreme Court order to send those two minutes apart for those protesters to scatter. Can you comply with that to identify for them to scatter . Yes maam. As we discussed earlier there were three warnings given in terms to leave the area, the way the crowd was moved, they could either go north or continue west to connecticut avenue or 17th street. So those previous witnesses for the testimony provided regarding audible warnings and we just saw that was played that was outrageous. I was watching i couldnt hear anything the peoples they are said what are they saying . What do they mean . You also watched the video of the female reporter. My question to you is she was standing there and then to be shot back with rubber bullets . I take seriously any misuse of policies and procedures there is a current internal and one Affairs Investigation underway and its currently under investigation about the end. Reclaiming my time i am asking you were there any actions committed by miss graves the type of actions and attacks . As i stated earlier, i will not comment on the Ongoing Investigation. I will commit we will hold officers accountable for any actions are deemed a violation and that investigation is still underway. Mr. Monahan are you aware covid19 affects the respiratory system . Yes maam. So why would you use any type of chemical agent in the midst of a virus . Again our rules of engagement on june 1st is that we would not use any force and last messed one met with force or resistance. So knowing when this country is dealing with a pandemic in one area most impacted is knowing that why using chemical agents. With Peaceful Protesters. That was in response to the violent behavior by bad actors in the midst of others to peacefully assemble. As i mentioned before, those that have come before the committee they have all testified that those were Peaceful Protesters. The nation was watching while they saw how the Police Attacked Peaceful Protesters. So immediately following the incident they were appalled that what the Trump Administration was endangering other safety media reports indicate that they directly misled the police about the nature of the operation. How do you respond to those comments made by the board chair any allegations that misled the Arlington Police about the nature of their operation . The United States park police enjoys a long and storied history with the arlington Police Department in terms of mutual aid over the last numerous years. With their assistance and vital assistance to our operations on june 1st, that was a request made through mutual aid. Senator why do you think they are saying that you misled them . It implies that you lied to them . And thank you chief monahan for being here today. Coming from the more rural part of the world Southeast Pennsylvania to have the george floyd protest to join in with on the legal Police Forces and then we mentioned before that that you believe every incident should have a complete record. And the idea is not only to do the job but improve the way you do the job to make sure that that is not repeated. We want accountability including the park police. And to do that. It is proper to do these incidents to flesh out what is improper. With that violent test with police and protesters that is some kind of a show but thats not necessarily true but to find accountability. I would agree absolutely. Thank you for being here and going through this. When the congressman asked you a question if it is a coincidence with the timing and the clearing of Lafayette Square and the photo op the white house engaged in i dont think thats what it meant but i wanted to give you a chance to clear that up. And to clear the north side was irrespective of any decision from the white house or the president. It was completely irrespective of that. I thought that was your position. It was a complete coincidence according to your testimony. Yes sir. What time was the curfew for 7 00 p. M. . And what did the curfew call for . How is that communicated to the public and to the people understand what that was calling for . I cannot say what every member understood. Did the park please help to reinforce that 7 00 p. M. Curfew. We did not play a role to enforce the 7 00 p. M. Curfew. And that was regrettable that the sole laceration punch in the face that was clearing h street . Yes sir. Of course that forms of officers chasing protesters with batons. Did you believe that representative only had done minimum level to control the situation of Lafayette Square on june 1st . Yes. With the rules of engagement. With that minimum level of reasonable force to control that situation. We only utilize force if that with violent. Another section says it would be decreased or discontinued and after the protesters began where they no longer required to clear the square. What time why is that that the use of force was no longer required . Im not sure i understand your question. Did you conclude the level of force was no longer required to clear the square . That is what youre rules require. I guess it requires a little bit of explanation. It is a fluid situation. Throughout the operation there was an instance where an officer was wrestled to the ground by an angry and violent protester. He attempted. Excuse me sir. You are not answering my question. Did you at any time during the clearing of the square determine that deescalation was appropriate . Yes or no. Trying to give you a good example. I will move on. You will not answer my question. Finally the policy says the x collation tactic one escalation tactic and that the pack police with the entire protest crowd on june 1st to get them to voluntarily comply and most importantly to reduce or eliminate the necessity to use force . Yes i do. And then to use force your testify today in the previous days in june 1st there were a number of officers injured and a lot of violence used. But on june 1st, you are using that as your rationale of filers from the beginning can you point to a section of the policy. With the use of force that we utilize a june 1st was in direct correlation to the level of violence we were subjected to on june 1st. Any reference to anything that occurred on may 29 or 30 or 31st was for context. And that is directly related and then immediately before the surge. To recognize mr. Brown for five minutes. Thank you for testifying today. I do appreciate that you and your officers and Public Safety. With engagement with other violence or looting and how we engage peaceful protest for the unlawfulness and on june 1st attorney general bar with the shot of Lafayette Park. And then speaking to a man who look like a part Police Official with the exaggerated recognition and i will asked the committee to show that video and as they do, focus on the man who approaches attorney general bar attorney general barr to be a Law Enforcement official. And the aides are right there behind the police line at Lafayette Park. And back to the white house and to be there when the president makes a statement. But right now hes very close to where the action is right across from pennsylvania avenue. A moment unfolding the right now i dont know why attorney general barr decided to go there maybe he just wanted to see the demonstrators chief of police it looks like hes walking away from the police line. Can you identify that Law Enforcement official in the video . Captain russell simmons. Is at the Incident Commander . No he is not. Has he spoken with the captain speaking with attorney general bar since june 1st . Yes i have. Was that an after action review to learn about events on that day . Yes sir. Say the captains name again. Russell suddenly fennelly. Did he receive that from attorney general barr. He did not. If you look at the video he proactively walked over to the group. You can see him with his hand pointing. What did he ask him to do . Thats what im trying to explain. He gestured to his left and right. His point in addressing the group they were very close to the north end of Lafayette Park and an area where the officers were subjected to projectiles being thrown at them so based on that assessment they were way too close to the line and in a position of danger. Do you have any why one any idea why captain why he patted him on the back . Yes i do. His purpose to address them was to ask them to move away from the area so they are in a safer location at the end of that exchange with the attorney generals detail they move south through the park away through the demonstration. What information did attorney general one attorney general barr convey . The captain conveyed. Your officer responded to something that attorney general barr said. What did he say to your officer on the ground . Again, addressing the attorney general and his detail requesting they move from a position of safety as opposed to be on the line. What was his response . You can see the response they heated his warning. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this hearing. To answer the Unanswered Questions from last months hearing from the Lafayette Square protest. As my fellow Community One Committee Members have stated we need to assess without provocation to violate the fundamental principles for us to closely examine how that could have occurred. So we can try to get some answers to these questions. Mr. Monahan come i thank you would agree managing a large car like a protest is a Law Enforcement challenge requiring a specific knowledge and skill they are not properly trained what are the consequences for protesters or the officers themselves . The United States park Police Officers are properly trained and centered around the protection of life those that are there to peacefully assemble to maintain law and order and ensure the safety of our officers. That is our focus for the demonstration on june 1st and any that we facilitate. Am i correct that all of your officers were trained is that not the case they can quickly escalate and become violent . Based on the scenario you just mentioned i would agree. Attacking the entire crowd or advise them to isolate with those perpetrating the violence . I will give you an example i have done 20 peaceful marches at home and a number of them people have shown up if there wasnt one episode of violence is not true you should isolate and remove those a try to perpetrate the problem . Yes and then we would not use force and as we were met with resistance from the crowd and those bad actors subjected to violent behavior against Law Enforcement throughout the operational. On june 1st. Let me ask you about the other Law Enforcement units that were there. Do you know if any officers for many other agencies that were not trained. The agencies we partnered with that day were all trained in civil disturbance. So every officer to your knowledge president was trained that day . Yes maam. To my knowledge so the Arlington County Police Department specifically to help the part police so you do know that everybody there . Yes maam the United States park Police Secret Service Uniformed Division operating under unified command consistent with that are trained in Civil Service so with sustained violence being directed to the officers and for those that are there. Let me ask you a question i think its very important how do you know that everybody you are working with has been trained dealing with these situations . The agencies that were part of the carrying operation on h street participate in the same training that we do. You make sure that ahead of time . Yes these are regional partners we collaborated with on a yearly basis larger demonstration such as june 1st such as the inauguration and things like that. The gentle lady yields back your recognized for five minutes. Would you mind coming back . Your recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Acting chief moynahan i am sure you understand nobody here is disputing the need of the appropriate response from may 29 and that your officers were injured, we are sorry about that. It appears the president of the United States cleared Peaceful Protesters to have a photo op that he had the protest under control and to intimidate americans for exercising their First Amendment rights. As a result the numerous protesters who were there peacefully and grievously injured as a result. Do you think its appropriate to clear protesters to pave the way for a photo op for President Trump . No sir. That was not our objective or what we accomplished. Our focus was centered around the demonstrators to maintain law and order we accomplish that goal. What are the usual reasons in order to remove americans from Lafayette Square in other instances in your career . In this particular instance. Im talking about in the pas past. With a historical basis often times throughout the course of the year there are demonstrations on the south side of the white house cycle. And at times based on what the group is and what they are there for, it is an organized affair but markedly different from what we saw on june 1st. What we saw was a need to clear the area and create a safe space. The whole concept was based on the effort to deescalate the violence rising from may 29 through june 1st without the operational. That was our goal and those are the objectives on june 1st. You are given a legal order is that correct . If you were given and ill legal order by a superior you have the duty to refuse that correct. Thats accurate so you could clear that for Campaign Purposes would that be a legal order . Thats not my testimony toda today. Our operation and objective was to clear the area to establish in an effort to deescalate the violence on the rise since ma may 29. I understand to maintain law and order and provide for the safety of our officers. I understand your intent and interpretation acting chief moynahan but im asking in theories since many of us have disagreements on what happened that day, would it be illegal for you to clear Lafayette Square for Campaign Purposes for president of the United States . Respectfully im not here to engage in theoretical conversations im here to give you an accurate accounting of what happened and on june 1st our focus was to clear Lafayette Park for the safety of those to peacefully assemble to maintain law and order and provide for safety of officers. Thank you chief we need to maintain law and order thats why its important if we refuse those at the political nature and i yelled back. Chair recognizes for five minutes. Thank you. Number one i believe there are racial injustices and inequities we absolutely need to address with the United States congress i do believe in some cases they are systemic i also want to commend major dimarco for stepping up to express concern about what he viewed that was an appropriate. And lastly some of the reports of folks being detained and questioned without charges by some of the protesters out west come i do support the investigation of those and i want to be clear i dont believe this provides an opportunity to infringe on peoples constitutional rights. That your officen the preceding days to what we are discussing today, meaning the injuries of officers, the fires, the damage to public property and things along those lines. They have been from time to time and are the exception of the rule. Is it fair to say that this was really an extraordinary protest in regards to the damage and injury to your officers . I believe i read somewhere over 50 officers were injured. Thats correct. So, mr. Chairman. I think we all need to first of all be very clear that theres nothing normal about this. This was an extraordinary efforts and you had folks that were experienced and trained to deal with this. Mr. Chairman, last week or the week before, we had the Great Outdoors act under the jurisdiction of this committee, though the bill didnt come to the committee, where we appropriated mandatory spending billions of dollars to maintain things at the National Parks and other federal lands that comprise 28 of the United States of america. We did this mandatory spending that goes onto perpetuity. 200 years now we are still sending it. This is the second hearing that we are having on an incident that happened at Lafayette Park. There is a Global Pandemic right now. We have record unemployment and recession. We are seeing the virus takeoff everywhere. We are wasting time on this. I absolutely believe we need to protect the rights of our citizens, but this is ridiculous the way that the chief is being treated, its ridiculous. Think about that for a minute. The president is trying to advance the Campaign Initiative coming yet what you are doing is advance the Campaign Initiative using resources right here, the hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting watching what is happening here. Everybody is showing clips that promote their narrative. There were fires and dozens of officers being injured as a result of the protest. I think it is absolutely disgusting folks are trying to spare this narrative. The next panel major demarco is going to be talking about what his perspective is. As i understand, the meaning on saturday determined the need for the fans. With the major involved in those meetings to talk about the justification . No sir, he was not. I would comments him but i also think that its important to note he wasnt aware of all of the information. Theres 20 seconds left. Very quickly are there any other things you would like to share with the committee . I know you were cut off so i will give you the last few seconds here. I would go back to the original point the objective on june 1 was to provide the Public Safety into the objective was to maintain a law and order and ensure any demonstration could continue uninterrupted for the safety of officers and i think that we accomplished that. I want to ask for the record of the chief could provide the committee with information indicating whether those protesters that were closer and if they seem to lead to those that were responding to the announcements werannouncement o. I will yield back. There is a severe pandemic going on, and notwithstanding it would be appropriate to understand there is a vast pandemic going on. With that i recognize than thank you, mr. Chairman for holding the hearing. It may have violated the First Amendment rights in Lafayette Park. It was so the president could get the chance to stand in front of the church and hold a bible. I yield my time back. Thank you, mr. Chair and representative sablan. Who were the others that were there at the National Park service . The agencies to, the police, the secret service. Thats it. We have federal protective Service Inside the park. I want to run something by that a couple of timelines. That happened with at what time does the commander gave the order to start pushing on the protesters . The first warning that was given to the protesters the area was being closed so we could install the fenc defense was gi 6 23 p. M. 6 23 p. M. Then they started moving in on the protesters up with tim . The our operation began at around 6 30 p. M. At 6 43, as you are pushing i want to read what the president is saying. Im also taking a swift action to protect the great capital of washington, d. C. What happened last night was a total disgrace as we seek to speak there are thousands of heavily armed soldiers and military personnel and officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism and march of destruction on property. And the president is bragging about ordering Law Enforcement. Yet, you are arguing that the park police made the decision about when to push based on scenario and the situation for putting up the fencing is that correct . I im not arguing with you. Im telling you what happened. So, a 6 43 this is happening. There is no radio recording of that day. There is a timeline that makes sense if you put it together. The first meeting, 6 30, 6 23, 6 45 push on the protesters and then you claim that you are meeting violent resistance coming ye, yetthere is no viole. You claim the only virus that was meant that they was after the initial push. There was no officer was injured prior to your order. Is that correct . I wouldnt equate this. We were subjected to projectiles throughout the day on june 1. We were met with violence persisting from the clearing operations at the north end of Lafayette Park. At your taunting people. The rules of engagement were to use force with violent resistance is. I believe i gave you numerous examples of individuals that jumped over the police line several times that day there were projectiles being thrown all throughout the day. You have to do that at the exact point that happened to be seven minutes before the president starts his speech . It couldnt wait until 7 p. M. When theres people probably starting to retreat, and its at that exact same moment we have no radio coincidentally that one day that all happened in the span of 30 minutes, and all happened exactly how you are reporting it. Your assessment is totally off. Did the u. S. Park police coordinate with anybody in the white house for the secret service . We were operating under the unified command with the service. I wouldnt say that it was with the white house. I think they were two separate things. Was it the order of the mayor of dc to have a common is that the order that i keep hearing about . It would make sense that they would start clearing earlier to achieve the goal of the mayor. Let me ask mr. Cunningham for his five minutes. You are recognized. If there is no objection, unanimous consent to join the committee and ask questions. Hearing none, you are recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to object to the notion. This is right across the river from my district. I hope this is coming in a. It doesnt seem to be. Mr. Chairman, apparently the video traffic in alexandria has crushed this, so if i can go on with audio if that would be permissible. There is no objection. Okay. Thank you. Acting chief monahan, i continue to have three worries over the incident that they. First and foremost, this is right across the river from my district. Many of my constituents were in the crowd in danger including my daughter and her fiance. I talked to many people who were there describing two completely different pictures than you did and i remain very worried about how this has affected many Peaceful Protesters. Then what happens to the Arlington County police and local Police Forces who were organized under your authority that they. They were the frontlines pushing the protesters which is fully inappropriate. A and any engagement that routinely happens in the Nations Capital business by the chair of the board pulled back as soon as you heard about it. The action they were actively working to rebuild. And i know there was an embarrassment and regret for them. Third and most importantly, the behavior of the officers. With the behavior that theycome at a loss to the communitys trust. Why is this important . Because in the National Capital region, the police are an important local Law Enforcement entity. We depend on them to do the right thing. This is not the first problematic incident. You talked about the interaction with the press because there is an Ongoing Investigation. I wrote to you back in november of 2019 to get an update on the investigation. I got a letter back eight months later saying that you couldnt comment because it was an Ongoing Investigation with a murder that happened almost three years ago. And a month after my match with then chief mcclain who committed to be the park police would adopt body cameras. I thought that was smart and an excellent commitment. The only reason we know is because the Fairfax County police had their cameras on. In 2020 now, we have this deal where the cops didnt work for the police that they, no record, and lafayette was another red flag for the Police Behavior again because there were no body cameras much of what we know happened is because of other Law Enforcement communications. Ive been following up with your department for years now asking for body cameras to be adopted since they were committed to be. But the park police has not nor have i then provide any rationale for the lack of adoption, and ironically, largely every other Law Enforcement in the interior has adopted body cameras. The language of the house interior appropriations bill that was just passed last year that gets you the money and addresses any policy concern you may have thanks to the leadership. So, theres literally no excuse for the park police not to adopt body cameras. In fact, you would be in a better position to do with your testimony if you had them. So, chief, can you commit to me to the committee today that he will adopt body cameras . Thank you for the question, sir. So, its true the United States park Police Currently doesnt have a body camera worn program. We are supportive of such an acknowledged its alignment with contemporary trends in Law Enforcement as well as expectations from the public. However, this time we are not in the position to successfully implement, manage and sustain a Body Worn Camera program. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask the money and the policy is in the appropriations bill, so i hope that will not be your ongoing answer. With that, i will yield back. First of all, mr. Monahan, thank you for appearing today. We do have more questions to follow. I think theres always discussion. Weve heard many things and why june 1 incident is so important is because Everything Else that is going on around the issue, not only of questions of police reform, abuse, because by this administration and the president specifically upsetting more and more communities, whether they want them or not. I think the precursor to much of this discussion began to first june 1 with the president affair and the premature clearing of the park. Just out of my own curiosity, when did you know that the president was coming to st. Johns, and how did you learn about . Yes, sir. We were notified earlier in the day that the president was going to visit Lafayette Park to view the damage that was done to the park over the course of the preceding days. But we were not given a time when he was visiting. And on the scene of that day, who had technical command of the scene, in particular, who ordered the officers to move forward in the first surge of 6 30, who sat down or did the command and the clearing . Did the order go from q. To move forward at that time . Gimmick the order is given by the commander from the United States park police on june 1 the commander was major mark. Following up on some questions, you were going all the way from the president down in terms of your role commanding the u. S. Park police as you do, literally leading the charge. And two other agencies were at the county supporting the park police and the dc National Guard. So, whats the chain of command in that process . The chain of command for an incident such as the one on ju june 1, we were upgrading under the model for the command system. The Incident Commander for the United States park police was major mark. We were operating under unified command said h so they had a counterpart on the secret service side. And who was above the Incident Commander . He has full command and control of the publication and thoperation and theauthority tod positions for that operation. And the order was given verbally or ove over the radio e other means . Which order are you referring to, sir . To move the crowd of 6 30. In terms of the warnings that were given to the public, they were given with the use of a longrange device that we described earlier, we gave the first of three warnings beginning at 6 23 p. M. Prior to getting those warnings, he gave a briefing to all of the commanders that were going to be involved in the clearing of beech street so they understood what the operation was and what the rules of engagement were. Who authorized park police to use weapons, devices that were used in particular the chemicals . Did the lawyers that reviewed the actions say that it was okay . Who would be to authorize that . The authorize fish on the rules of engagement is the commander icon kurt with the change in the rules of engagement for june 1, which expressly prohibited the use of gas. Much has been said for the people under your command, the officers that were hurt. We are glad that theyve made a recovery and they are doing well. I think one of the issues here today is like i said, is a precursor to much of the discussions going on about law and order and how criticized its become. Part of the questions we have, and whether our government even understands the difference between an unruly violent mob and peaceful First Amendment rights. And even worse is the fact that we are seeing the administration continue to expand this author. Approach to Law Enforcement with the issues in portland and other major cities. And like i said, june 1 stands out as a date we will continue to pursue, and with that i dont have any other questions. Chief, appreciate your time and cooperation. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to add to the record a fact sheet from the doi re june 1 and the offense. Without objection. Thank you. So ordered. If there are no other questions thank you, mr. Chair. We will invite the next witness forward. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] now we will begin the second panel. If major demarco would join us. Thank you. Adam demarco is a strategy and operations consultant for a Consulting Firm here in dc. He is also the nature of the district of Columbia Army National Guard where he served in executive duty with the u. S. Army 2014. This testified person to military whistleblower protection act. I wanted to get brief moment to recognize his father, frank demarco. Thank you for joining us, sir. Youve traveled a long way to be here in the room with your son. As a reminder of the Committee Rules, mr. Demarco, your oral statement is five minutes. Your entire statement is part of the record. And again, thank you very much and you are recognized for five minutes. Chairman, Ranking Member bishop, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify today. I come before the committee to help ensure that there is a fair, factual record of what happened at Lafayette Square based on what i saw and experienced firsthand. I especially want this committee, the residents of washington, d. C. And the American People to know that the dc National Guard performed with the utmost professionalism and integrity. Faithful to our constitution, under the most challenging circumstances. On june 1, i served as a liaison between the District Of Columbia National Guard and the park police at Lafayette Square. The role of the National Guard is to support the Police Operations to clear demonstrators from the vicinity of Lafayette Square. The immediate objective of this clearing operation as the park police informed me was to install a large security barricade along the Northern Edge of Lafayette Square. The dc National Guard was not to be actively engaged in the clearing operation, rathe rathet would follow behind the police unit that helped to secure and expand the perimeter once it was established. A National Guardsman are outfitted with standard riot gear and face masks, shields, shin guards and the ponds for defensive purposes, but no National Guardsmen were armed with lethal or in non lethal munitions. From what i observed the demonstrators were behaving peacefully, exercising First Amendment rights. At around 6 20, they issued the first morning announcements to the demonstrators directing them to disperse. He did not expect the announcement so early as the curfew wasnt to go into effect until 7 p. M. That evening 40 minutes later. They were conveyed with a megaphone approximately 50 yards from the demonstrators. From where i was standing approximately 20 yards, the announcements were barely audible imbecile no indication the demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings to disperse. At approximately 6 30, they began the operation led by the units and officers. No National Guard personnel participated in the pushing or engaged in any other use of force against demonstrators. As the clearing operation began, i heard explosions and saw smoke used to disperse protesters. The park Police Liaison officer told me the explosions were stage smoke and no tear gas was being deployed against the demonstrators. But i could feel irritation in my eyes and nose and based on previous exposure to teargas in training, i recognized the irritation as the effect consistent with tear gas. And later that evening, i found spent teargas canisters on the streets nearby. As the park police pushed the demonstrators further down, i saw them scattering and fleeting as the park police fled towards them. I observed people told to the ground, some police use their shield as an. As i walked behind park police pushing westward, i also observed unidentified Law Enforcement personnel behind the National Guardsmen using painful like weapons to discharge what i later learned to be pepper balls into the crowd as demonstrators continued to flee. After a street had cleared i took a position on 16th street near st. Johns church. Around 7 05 p. M. I saw the president walking on eighth street from Lafayette Square near st. Johns church. The arrival was a complete surprise as we havent been briefed that he would enter the sector. As for the security barrier, the installation was a standard purpose for the clearing operation, the materials did not arrive on scene on eighth street until around 9 p. M. That evening and it wasnt completed until later on. Members of the committee, the te events i witnessed at Lafayette Square the evening of june 1 were deeply disturbing to me and fellow National Guardsmen. Based on my training and experience come at no time did i feel threatened by the protesters or a system to be violent. Based on established u. S. Military protocols concerning the proportionality of force in dealing with civil disturbances, both in the United States and overseas, it was my observation the use of force against demonstrators and the clearing n. Was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force. From my observation of the demonstrators are fellow american citizens and were engaged in a peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights, yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force. As the late representative john lewis said, when you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have the moral obligation to Say Something and to do something. I swore to defend the United States constitution, the bedrock guiding principle. Its the foundation of the trust safely placed in the armed forces by the American People and it compels me to Say Something, to do something about what i witnessed on june 1 at Lafayette Square. Thank you for your time into this opportunitand thisopportund to your questions. What they recognize mr. Husband you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Major demarco, you are not part of the park police force, so you may not be as familiar with the 2015 legal settlement that i discussed with the acting chief, but you did hear i think the elements of the settlement, the specific requirement of how when confronting protesters of the park Service Police are required to stage in a very specific way with officers in the back of the crowd who would visually and verbally confirm that the warnings were loud enough to be heard and understood, that the warnings needed to include a very clear reference to specific legal violation and a warning that arrests would ensue. So, you were on the ground. You testified they were just a few yards from the front line here. Tell me, if you can, if you believe that chief monahans version of this but every on the of those elements was complied with to the letter, was that your experience as a firsthand witness . O on the ground, im not aware of the longrange device being in that position or utilized for the proclamation to disperse. You talked about a standard megaphone. Maybe thats what they mean when they say long range acoustic device. The only thing you heard was a standard megaphone, correct . That is correct, placed on a bench utilized with a handheld microphone. Do you believe that it was audible enough to be understood by the protesters throughout the crowd . No, sir. I could barely understand the message delivered. Did you see anything to suggest there were officers of the back of the crowd somehow confirming that it was loud enough to be understood . I did not observe that, sir. What about the behavior of the protesters, did anything in their reaction or behavior suggest to you they either understood her not understood what had been said in the megaphone . I saw no change in their disposition or posture. And in the morning did you hear any reference to the specific law is being violated . I could only make out every other word in a statement delivered. I want to ask about the fencing that has been offered as a justification for why this will have to happen. The acting chief said the fencing, contrary to your testimony, arrived several hours earlier today that i think thatt he said it was staged a couple of blocks away. Is there any reason why, if it was important to install the fencing as soon as it was onsite, but it wouldnt have happened a couple hours earlier, if it had already arrived by that point . Sir, i cant get into hypotheticals about why it was not installed at that time. Based off of the army trained publications and various doctrine that we use in installing and maintaining fences and position, certainly i would have looked at other time frames to install. That you found it odd you a 7 p. M. Curfew coming up just 25 minutes later and the fencing could have been installed at that point and in a matter that would have avoided a confrontation potentially; a and my understanding your suggestion currently . At the time, i didnt think that correlation. I was focused on getting the mission and getting our soldiers face off and into position. So were you told that this was about fencing . Yes, sir. What they ask, if i could, about the timing of the clearing of the crowd. There was reporting from a cnn reporter suggesting from that moment that the advance began, ipv6 35, within ten minutes, this crowd of several thousand people by all accounts was gone. That suggests to me there with great urgency. There was a very rapid clearing of the crowd. What was your observation . Based off of Army Training publication entitled civil disturbance, that escalation to rapidly move in t into disperse people isnt in accordance with what i understood to be the suggested and guided practice to clear the sector. So the urgency to the speed of the clearing was unusual in your experience is that correct . I was taken by surprise, correct. Do you infer from that that that was part of the objective by the park police that clearing with speed was their intention . Yes. Thank you and i will yield back. You are recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Demarco for being here. In the previous panel, chief monahan testified that the fencing plans were made two days before june 1. It was on saturday the 30th of may. And that of course is in the aftermath of the most violent protests that took place over the weekend. The park service and u. S. Secret service rightfully wanted to take steps to prevent that from happening. Were you a part of those discussions two days prior . No sir. On the first of june, what kind of role did you have . Were you in a senior position of command and control, or were you there primarily as a supportive role . I wasnt a commander nor was i the Office Officer in charge. I was the liaison to the park police and dc National Guard. I received missions and tasks and then alert the senior officer in charge on the ground up with the park police was requesting. So a supportive role in that regard, okay. Thank you. You state the fencing didnt arrive until 9 p. M. On june 1, correct . Yes, sir. Folks on the ground and the secret Service Share a different timeline. Heres the timeline they have. The Fencing Company site manager arrived at 3 30 p. M. On june 1. The Company Staff arrived shortly thereafter. The fencing material was delivered at 5 00 p. M. The order was given at 6 23. The square was cleared by 6 50 and material moved into the square immediately and construction began at 7 30. So there isnt a matchup in your timeline and what actually took place. How do you reconcile this . From my position on eighth street and 16th street and the First Sighting i had of the 18 wheeler carrying them on scalable than with past 9 p. M. That evening, on or around coming into the completion didnt occur until around 10 30 p. M. Later that evening. I guess what youre saying is there is at least a possibility from the location where they were, you were not able to see all of the activity and realized what was taking place elsewhere . That is correct. However it was only being installed along a street from connecticut to vermont. The timeline actually started at 7 30 so its a location you could perhaps see if it was taking place. Its possible. You stated just a few moments ago about the three warnings in the testimony here. Use ayou said that 6 20, the pak Police Issued first of three warnings and announcements to the demonstrators directing them to disperse. You just said you didnt hear that but your testimony says they gave three warnings. They did, that i couldnt hear the full proclamation was being given. But around that time at 6 20 p. M. , the warnings began. So if you didnt hear them how were you aware they took place . I was approximately 30 yards away and i saw the Park Police Officer with a megaphone laying on a bench 30 yards away from where . Essentially president jacksons i couldnt make out exactly what they were saying. Enough you knew it was the first of three warnings dispersed. No, sir that is your written testimony. Correct. If i was standing at the line i would have no idea what they were saying. I was in a privileged position i could hear and expected something to be coming from them. Okay. Again, your written testimony says 6 20, very precise, they gave the first three. Anyway, we will go on from there. Let me ask in closing, i think you for your service, and a great deal of service you have done and even politically. Have you ever run for congress . Yes, sir. 2018. Oneparty . Democrat. I think its interesting that how a lot of these dots connect as we continue detaining the Police Department and attacking them or their stated purpose of protecting Public Safety and the rule of law and enforce the safety of our Law Enforcement. Mr. Chairman, i will yield back for now. Ms. Holland, you are recognized. Thank you, chairman. Thank you major demarco. It seems some Law Enforcement officers that lafayette were not pleased about what they were asked to do on that today. Arlington county older Police Officers from the role in assisting the u. S. Park police because they were shocked about how their officers were used to attack Peaceful Protesters. It seemingly just wasnt what they had signed up for. We heard about how members of the National Guard who were at Lafayette Square have struggled with things they were asked to do on june 1. Because it runs directly counter to the very reasons they decided to serve their country and to their oath to support and defend the constitution. In your testimony today, you expressed a similar sentiment that what you saw our government doing was wrong and that it was difficult to reconcile that the situation with your commitment to your country and your fellow americans. Can you tell us a bit more about how this affected you personally as an officer in the National Guard . Yes maam and thank you for that question. In the days following june 1, i struggle to process exactly what had happened and had taken place. To the point where i was sleeping very little and i started trying to figure out what the next steps were. I confided with several in the gardens all as other friends and advisors that i have served with those on active duty and in support of the active duty obligations. A couple days later i decided i needed to memorialize my record or my memory, and i wrote my own sworn statement on my evolution, and i read it in front of another officer and he signed off on it, because they knew something was wrong but i didnt know what. And it was shortly thereafter i started reaching out and seeing what could be done, because i truly felt compelled i had to Say Something. I started talking to other soldiers in my unit and the soldiers that i had Supervisory Authority over and they were expressing many of the same conservations and concerns. So i knew that it wasnt just me that witnessed this and felt something both morally and legally wrong in trying to procesprocess that i realized in a position as a major in the United States Army National guard where i can do something. Thank you. And im sorry that you were put in that position. Are you aware of any other concern from other people, either your colleagues in the dc National Guard that were there that day, and have they shared with you how this incident has affected them ask one of the soldiers in my unit without giving out any personal identifiable information, isnt a nativeborn american citizen from a developed country, and in talking with him and helping him try to understand what he saw in his role in that which he acted honorably, he said the events of june 1 with those he expected to see in his home country, not here in the United States. That was a very troubling statement that i heard from him, but i told him we were doing the right thing and another reason on the long litany of reason why m here today to testify. And along the same lines, what does this situation do for the morale and Mental Health of the people you serve with . The District Of Columbia National Guard has been outstanding in ensuring that our soldiers and airmen have received support from both the chaplain and emotional support counselors to ensure that they understand and they have the Resources Available if they need further counseling. And, major demarco, would you ever put your fellow guardsmen were women in a position where they were attacking citizens who were largely peacefully protesting . Absolutely not. And you mentioned in your statement that you were reminded that the dc guard was there to respect the rights of proteste protesters. Were you and your guard members confused why youd been told they were there to protect the rights of americans and then realized that they were asked to backup officer officers as theyd the same protesters that they were supposed to respect . No maam. When we arrived with the park police, we arrived to help them but also to maintain our duty to serve under our oath to support and defend the constitution. Because we are in a supportive role doesnt change the way we operate or the laws that we abide by. If you for answerina. Q. For y questions. I will yield back, mr. Chair. Major demarco, since you said you brought up the First Amendment at least three times, maybe for, in your statement, you said we were there to respect the demonstrators First Amendment rights. Was that the order that was given to you in the National Guard, get out. Your job is to respect the demonstrators First Amendment rights . Who gave that order . That was a statement from the joint chiefs mark malley. That is the same chairman of the joint chiefs that went out and criticized the president of the United States. Its a Different Military than the one i served in, because when i was in the army at fort benning, commanders constantly reminded us that, look, Everybody Knows president carter is doing terrible damage to the military, but if anyone criticizes their commander in chief anywhere but the very privately, they will either get an article 15, or they will be courtmartialed. So this is a new military im finding where the joint chiefs feels it is perfectly okay to demand his commanderinchief and then you felt the need to come out and testify differently from what weve heard from people within the administration and others that were out there. So im trying to get used to this new military where you dont really feel an obligation to answer to the civilian elected commander in chief. So, this is really intriguing. The rules of evidence and relevance here are much more relaxed than in the jury trial but even in the jury trial, it would be compelled to ask did the Democratic Party give you any Financial Assistance when you ran against John Sarbanes for congress . I was all self financed. Do you have any idea how many publications that mentioned your names you came out against the reports by people within the administration that Lafayette Park, any idea . No sir i put my phone on do not disturb last night. Okay, well apparently it is a whole lot more than you got when you got that 8. 5 or so running for congress. It looks like this is going to serve you well with the Democratic Party. But i am still quite concerned about our military. So, your job was to observe the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators. Were you out there when st. John was set on fire . There were two fires set in the church. I was there that evening. By tha the time the church fires reported o, i was by the Lincoln Memorial. Do you happen to know your own personal knowledge, who the peaceful demonstrator was or demonstrators that set the church on fire . I have no knowledge of that. Apparently there were some injuries out there. Are you familiar with how many lawenforcement officers have been hurt by peaceful, lawabiding demonstrators . I am aware of the injuries that occurred between the period of the 29th at the 31st of may which is the poor and. I am also aware of the injuries of the six National Guard personnel were injured in that timeframe. Would be injured by park police . No, sir. One was with a project file and then others that is from one of the people that was just observing First Amendment rights . Do you know what Supreme Court cases including the First Amendment rights the right to contest Law Enforcement . Sir, i have no legal background just curious. I really have no other questions. I will yield back. Mr. Blumenthal, you are recognized. Can you hear me now . Thank you. Major demarco, let me just get to the question. First, thank you for testifying. I am concerned about what i read or learned a little bit about. Do you know anything about Army Helicopters hovering washington, d. C. Related to the event on june 1 . Yes, sir. Can you discuss this and how do you know of these claims, what is said to be true . Can you discuss with you now . After the clearing of eighth street, i was informed by the park police that there would be low flying military helicopters in our area of operations. Shortly thereafter, i observed the first black hawk helicopter flying north of my position which was at that 16th and i street. I absorbed it had no distinctive markings, however the doors were open. When i made that observation, i assumed it was a publicaffairs helicopter going around taking photos of the response in support of the united gets park police. Later that evening, as a defense was being built along a street, i then heard radio transmissions over the radio of the National Guard internal Communications Network that there was a low flying helicopter in the vicinity of 15th street which is near chinatown. The transmissions i was receiving were that it was a low flying helicopter and it was making the pepper spray at the metropolitan Police Department and effective. I kept hearing this over the radio. I didnt know what was going on. It was out of our sector. I called over to the joint Operations Center and spoke to an officer and asked if he have any information as to what was happening. I told him the report i heard. He then made a communication within Operation Center and i hung up the phone and that is the last i heard of it. Were there any that have medical markings on the . You mentioned earlier that you believe it was an advanced at least some of these helicopter operations were not confident. Can you explain that . To the first question, later reporting indicates that the helicopters flying in the vicinity of 15th street had a medical red cross designation on it. The second point, but first i learned about the Army Aviation assets being used in the mission was from the United States park police. Do helicopters fly, when a flight is low, is that an intimidation maneuver . The metropolitan i believe Police Department complained that it was hard to use pepper spray or pepper balls. Sir, im not a pilot and my aviation experience is limited, so i cannot speak to tactics, te tactics, techniques or procedures of the pilots. Does using a helicopter in this way strike you as a sensible and safe way to do this operation . Sir, i am not in a position to talk about the safety or unsafe actions of pilots. But you are aware that the park police knew in advance that at least some of these helicopters were going to be there . Based off of the timeline and the notifications, yes, sir. And again, can you just explain how were these helicopters to be used, or did you know that they were . I was not aware of their purpose within the area of operation. Okay. Thank you. I will yield back. The gentleman from arizona. Major demarco, you reached the conclusion protesters were subject to an unprovoked escalation on june 1. However, that is historically different as a character based in compared to what we just heard from the chief. You testified dc National Guard was out there with riot gear. I understand they were also, did you not . No sir. We actually had a shortage. So on the scene i had a protective mask and a vast but i didnt have the baton, riot shield, shin guards her face visor. You claim to the senior National Guard officer on the scene. Did you make the decision to fully outfit the National Guard in riot gear . Note that came from the District Of Columbia National Guard commander. Somebody more senior than you must have anticipated some level of violence and you told us about your fellows were injured . Did you express any disagreement with your senior officer about the anticipation of violence prior to your deployment here . No, sir. The uniform they are outfitted with i this part of the Standard Operating Procedures for response to civil disturbance. So, we had a member from the other side of the aisle earlier asked the chief lawenforcement officer for the park police orders. If you thought they were so peaceful, and began to maneuver the senior National Guard officer on the scene, why did you have your soldiers participate in the station backs sir, we were there in a static defensive line. We didnt engage in the acting clearing of eighth street. By the way, whose order was it for the curfew at seven . The District Of Columbia mayor who instituted a curfew. Can you tell me a little bit more about the members that were injured . He said one was hit by a projectile. That is the order yes. And would you consider that peaceful . No sir. Why dont you describe the protesters as peaceful, chief monahan testified many were violent. Please answer the following. Yes or no. Chief monahan testimony describes bricks and rocks being thrown at officers. Would you consider that a peaceful or violent . Violence. Would you consider that these actions [inaudible] chief monahan also said they would flares and fireworks throwing that lawenforcement officers. Would you consider that peaceful or violent . Violence. Finally, two by four sections of wood were thrown at the officers. Does this seem peaceful or violent . Violence. The conversation was talking about helicopters, and you said that you were privy to exactly what was happening. Could it have been used to take photographs . [inaudible] wouldnt that be a smart intelligence obligation to find out how things are moving from the skies . Because you were kind of point on the ground, are you not . The use of Aviation Assets for aerial observations would give you a different one is to look at the mission. It would be more effective, would it not . It would add a different lens to the mission. It would make it more effective to spend because nothing more than the on the ground truth from the commande commanders. No, you want to make sure that youre seeing all the things happening as they are working and you can if you cant from your perspective on the ground. You dont have a 36 360 viewpoi, you dont know what youre anticipating. You dont know any of that. Thats why air traffic is very different. We use it on everyday traffic control, do we not . I would respectfully disagree from my time overseas in combat zones, theres nothing more important than the sensors on the ground and our men and women in uniform. To say this is a peaceful demonstration to have an obligation when they see violence. I yield back. I would like to place into the record information having to do with west point family issues having to do with his background and character and i want to file these if no objection so ordered. The picture with him and george bush at west point a known subversive to some people i felt that was important. How long we Lafayette Square . I arrived at 5 30 p. M. That evening about 5 30 p. M. Have you been on say before this quick. Yes. Would you describe the civilian protesters . On june 1st it was drastically different than the night before. June 1st peacefully assembled. We can agree may 29 there were violent protesters. I was only there on ma may 3. On may 31st i observed a riot based off Army Training publication it was classified as a riot. I would say that also. In your estimation that was not the case but there were peaceful protest . Correct. You have training in riot control and deescalation . Not formalized but just from Army Training from the field manuals i have never attended military police course. Someone within your unit has. Yes. Did you get the assessment report at 5 30 p. M. You are taking over at that time. Negative we were just arriving. Who gave you an assessment . When i first got there i met up with the park Police Liaison and was introduced to another officer. How did they describe the day to you . If they are connecting with you did they describe how the day was are the scenario . In the situation brief i received it was much different than the day before. What was it specifically . I cannot remember. Did they indicate the crowd was calmer and more peaceful . Generally. Then at what point were you told you would stand in line and form essentially a wall while the park police placed on the protesters . 5 45 p. M. The reasoning for that . The stated objective was to clear the area to facilitate a wall. But never that there was a rush the protesters or amount of time. There was is. When i received a briefing it simply asked for a timeline of events and said when will this commence . What i heard back was as soon as possible and then i heard they were expecting us to be there much earlier in the evening. So starting the pushback your Standing Orders were to what . Fit the dc National Guard was to maintain a perimeter around eighth street on h street and then they word reinforce and release. So basically you are owning territory as you would move as they pushed out with occupied territory. Yes sir. For anyones experience did you find it odd . Because from my experience and the training i had i never what imagine Peaceful Protesters to swinging your the time. That just leads to chaos that leads to more resistance. Did anyone in your unit think this was odd . Based on the Army Publications i saw this as an effective way to deescalate the situation. Was are deescalation prior the only other one that would set the parameters. You are recognized. Major demarco as acting chief monahan it was described as violent and described in testimony it led to the clearing of the park i like to place the video from Lafayette Square and then ask you some questions so at the last meeting for other cities or days or countries. This shows the park police. We have no weapons. Showing the protest crowed crowd does it show a riot or other violent activity . No sir. I agree with that. Did that justify the way they cleared from the area . Not from those videos did they represent the overall demeanor of the crowd. I cannot generally characterize but that is correct what i observed. The fact that mr. Monahan cannot even acknowledge the protest was peaceful that is troubling about their comment that day whether a government understand the difference between the unruly violent mob and people peacefully exercising First Amendment rights even worse to continue to expand this approach with the crackdown to me this is an attack on our democracy and constitution. The other side used to call themselves a constitutionalist. Where has that gone . In your testimony today i can imagine this that you in great professional and personal jeopardy. Is that true . Recent event certainly have me concerned. Just getting back to the oath we both swore to protect and defend the constitution of the United States is that not the bedrock guiding principle. I agree. Is that why youre here . Its a great tribute to representative lewis if you see something thats not right the other a moral obligation being here today youre saying something and doing something thank you for your service and with that i yield the balance of my time thank you mr. Chairman i want to yield my time. Personally and professionally thank you. There is a significant difference between members of Congress Taking the oath of office and those of us because obviously in the military we how superior officers with the hundred thousand that i served i cannot be courtmartialed for disrespecting the people that served. Not that i would do that. But i am curious come you mentioned in your Opening Statement that i was tasked to serve as a liaison between the Task Force Civil disturbance in the police at Lafayette Square. Who else was a liaison . Who else was in that capacity . We had several officers i just was for that specific operation. Who ordered you . The commander of the task force it was a committed rather not say his name. So we cannot verify that you are tasked with that position we are just forced to take your word for it . When you say commander, commander, commander of what . Make commander of the task forc force. The civil disobedience. Civil disturbance. In your testimony you stated the security barrier did not arrive on the scene until around 9 00 oclock p. M. But chief monahan testified a much different testimony of a timeline. Are you feeling strongly enough about arriving at 9 00 oclock p. M. You believe chief monahan was lying . I can only speak to my account as a witness the times that i presented are accurate. So its not possible according to you that the materials to build the security barrier did not arrive earlier that afternoon . I cannot talk about hypothetical. Is not a hypothetical i am asking you specifically, is it possible based on your knowledge and what you side observed those materials could have arrived much earlier . Its a possibility however based off my statement the materials did not arrive on h street. You keep saying you are a fact witness but you are put up as a legal expert you have indicated a number of times they were there to observe their First Amendment rights. I understand with your mba it qualifies you to make constitutional judgments like that but isnt it possible those materials did arrive earlier or add another location at the staging area . Thats possible. I yield back. Thank you for providing your testimony it has been extremely enlightening and its even more clear what the administration did that day was not only an appropriate but also unconstitutional one of the things you said in your testimony was the chairman of the joint chief of staff approached you after you briefed him he told you to ensure the National Guardsmen remained calm to respect the demonstrators First Amendment rights. Before the Law Enforcement search did you see the protest activity from violence or writing or other behavior we dont generally consider protected. Based off of Army Training of the one publication crowd management tactics the situation there would be construed as lawfully assembled. Thank you. Aside to the general give you any concern that the protesters rates could be violated . No sir. What was your reaction to see what the federal government did is they exercised First Amendment rights . I was certainly surprised at the timeline of events and certainly the escalation. Black and brown communities are already ravaged by the deadly virus in the unprecedented economic crisis now they are terrorized by a threat of a secret and federal police force in washington dc that we discussed at length with a violent suppression of Lafayette Square is a direct threat to our democracy and staring at us in the eye join outrage from around the world with the kind of actions we would normally condemn in other countries are now happening here at home. Demonstrations like what we witnessed in the wake of the killing of george floyd, rhianna taylor and many others never should have been met with deadly force by Law Enforcement. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. Major dimarco you mention in your statement you served in combat zones and understand how to assess threat environments. With regard to Lafayette Square you said at no time did you feel threatened. Is that correct . Yes sir. You mentioned it was your observation the use of force against protesters was an unnecessary escalation. Yes sir. Also you had extensive training dealing with protesters known technically as a civil disturbance that was there on june 1st. Correct. Can you explain the fundamental strategy have graduated responses and why thats important . Graduated response process entitled civil disturbances is a measured approach to a response to a crowd gathering. By recognizing the use of force policy soldiers must be taught to understand use the minimum force necessary spirit without the appearance of the graduated response they can consider actions as excessive with the possibility for violence. What we are hearing is the widespread violations was acceptable because it was happening before june 1st and other places. And theres truly widespread violence. And one day the protest were peaceful. If the evidence on june 1st for happening in iraq could you handle protest the way they handled them june 1st . Based off the chemical weapons ratified by the senat senate, that is incorrect we could not disperse the crowd. In the broadest terms can you explain the Geneva Convention and what happens to someone that violated . Im not legal expert but i can say it prohibits those agents from being used in a war zone. Earlier this morning we heard from acting chief monahan who said the officers used tremendous restraint. Basin your experience, what do you think of that statement from acting chief monahan . My opinion tremendous restraint does not involve the use of defensive equipment. So would it be tremendous restraint . I yield back. You are recognized for five minutes. Yes sir i am here. Thank you mr. Chairman. One excuse right was cleared from Lafayette Square on jun jut but that clearing commenced around 630 and we also have been testimony it was cleared well before the curfew you also said it was peaceful fencing arrived at 9 00 p. M. How did you know that quick. I made visual observations. Anywhere push back on that and the fence went along h street . And it would go from connecticut avenue all the way along vermont . That is about two blocks. Wouldnt that be almost impossible at either end of those blocks . Yes or. I think your testimony is very credible. Based on your training when was the best time to set the new perimeter . To set up a new parameter or defensive or Security Posture in the Early Morning hours for the general public. Why would be set up a new perimeter in the middle of the day at its peak . I cant speak for Law Enforcement personnel that as a commander or as an officer in charge i would not look for the high time to set this up. Were you ever told the operation will go forward during the peak time rather than at night or the next morning . No sir. It would certainly make sense it would be later after curfew . Yes sir. You mentioned in your written testimony attorney general bar was on the scene talking to park police. Thats correct. Do you believe. [inaudible] i cannot offer opinion just the facts. I appreciate that. So that is not a sound practice and did not arrive until after the protesters were cleared they were not adequately warned shortly after attorney general bar left Lafayette Square and just happen to have a photo up what was the most logical reason you could think of given your knowledge and expertise . I cannot hypothesize or speculate what transpired. I appreciate you sticking to the facts. Listening to the complaint could be construed as helicopter noise. But thinking in the 70 years ive lived in and around washington with the womens march theres a lot of demonstrations and marches any other time lowflying helicopters were used. Can you remember any other time . No sir. Nor can i which is why it was so upsetting for so many people that suggested when we were in afghanistan. Thank you very much for coming forward. Thank you. A appreciate your information and testimony to come forward. Given the actions of this administration retaliation and retribution many cases the point in that direction so i appreciate it. Let me ask you some questions. Does running for congress qualify you to be a truthful person . No sir. Im glad you answer that way are we would be in trouble right now. Attorney general bar said it was a result of ordinary planning. We already talked about that around Lafayette Square has nothing to do giving the president has full opportunity at the church. Based on what you witnessed your testimony is a satisfactor satisfactory . Respectfully i am not here im just a factbased witness. You testified no major guardsmen to me that Lafayette Square what about those of use by the National Guard . We only munitions i am aware of is the transfer of weapons from the dc armory. The pretext and the precedet you might not want to state the opinion on that. I remember what happened was a consequence to creating a photo opportunity and theme. The attorney general is making calls all the way along the line. We continue to pursue that but i also think what is going on in the nation right now is there is Peaceful Demonstrations going on and the vast majority are people that respect that nonviolent. Its either for a political agenda that hasnt fit into thee blacklight smatter movement or the social Justice Movement but they are political opportunists and its a chance to do other kind of harm to property and they are going to take advantage of it. But to use a broad brush as this administration uses Lafayette Square, everybody that was in place, criminals, anarchists and destruction of federal assets and attacking federal police and in this instance the park service i believe that is absolutely false and those false generalizations that are coming in by this administration and this law and order cake that they are on is just that, generalization and in some cases outright lies. I think we should be concerned about the creeping authoritarianism that is going on but is making the question that we are asking here today more and more relevant. With the come of that meeting is adjourned and i will yield back. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]