Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing On White Supremacy Domestic Terrorism Threat 20240707

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> today the judiciary committee will examine one of the most serious threats facing america today, domestic terrorism. this hearing comes just three weeks after one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks in recent memory, the mass shooting in buffalo, new york. the white supremacist entered tops grocery store and massacred ten black americans in cold blood, wounding three others. i want to read into the hearing record names we should not forget of the victims. roberta, andre mcneil. erin. geraldine. celestin cheney. hayward patterson. catherine massey, perl joan and ruth whitfield. behind each of those names is a story. a loving grandmother of six, a sister caring forch her sick brother, a father who at the time of the shooting was buying snacks for aan movie night with his family. every one of these victims left behind loved ones who are grieving that loss, and several of those loved ones are in the room with us today. i thank them for being here. there are no words to fill the empty chairs at your dinner table or thewi empty spaces in your heart. but your willingness to sit in this room, to honor the memory of those you lost, is a lesson in courage and love. please know that you're not alone. america joined you in grief. we offer our deepest condolences and, , most important, our commitment to do something. when gunmen are slaughtering babies, grandparents and other innocent children, americans in grocery stores, schools, neighborhoodsan and houses of worship we have a responsibility to do something.d nearly nine in ten americans agree, we need sensible gumball reform in this country and we need it now. we often had the question asked, why do mass shooters engage in such horrific acts? what other motivations is a focus of this hearing. domestic terrorism. i threat that is in the words of the fbi director christopher wray metastasizing across the country. i was just handed a press release as i came into the room, that there was a federal indictment handed down today against five members of the proud boys, a white supremacist group, including its former leader, charging them with seditious conspiracy for the roles in the january 6th assault. for those who believeve that wht the subject matter of this hearing is a contrivance and doesn't reflect reality, , these indictments indicate that we're talking about real-life crime and real-life terrorism. violent extremism, however, just doesn't appear out ofe thin ai. i would like to turn to a video on the role of the media and the role that they played in dragging hateful rhetoric into mainstream america. and sadly, how it's inspiring acts of racist violence. oric ino mainstream america. and, sadly, how it is inspiring acts of racist violence. >> the country is being stolen from american citizens -- >> they want to replace you with the american voters with newly amnesty citizens -- >> more obedient voters from the third world -- >> their plot to remake america as to bring in the illegals -- >> makes our own country poorer and dirtier -- >> our civilization is superior to the culture that these immigrants are bringing -- >> this is a flat out -- invasion >> it is a war -- >> undefended, a collapses -- >> we're going to assign the tens of thousands, perhaps millions of americans, to their death -- >> we have every right to fight to preserve our nation and our heritage and our culture -- >> one people, one nation -- one people, one nation -- >> and 18 year old white supremacist opened fire on a supermarket. the great replacement theory motivated this 18 year old white supremacist. >> it is my nephew, he just came here to throw his son a birthday party. he left behind five kids. >> she was that light that sean through whatever darkness might have been present. >> i enjoyed our life together. >> she loved cooking and sharing food with us. >> when all hell broke loose at times, aaron salter, the policeman, stepped into his assignment. >> a woman who survived three aneurysms and breast cancer. >> catherine massie, i think for action against growing gun violence that ended up taking her life. >> took away my mother and my best friend. this needs to be fixed. >> one day, i'll be up there with her, one day in heaven. >> i first held a hearing on domestic terrorism in the year 2012, ten years ago. after a white supremacist murdered seven sikh worshippers in oak creek, wisconsin. sadly, ten years later, this threat has only grown worse. in the decade since oak creek, violent white supremacists have killed innocent americans in a series of sickening attacks. they include mass shootings at the emanuel church in south carolina in 2015, pittsburgh's tree of life synagogue in 2018 and walmart in el paso, texas in 2019. well each of these attacks was committed by a lone gunman, they are part of a larger pattern. don't take my word for it. during the prior administration, the fbi and department of homeland security found that, and i quote, white supremacist extremism poses a persistent threat of lethal violence and that, since 2000, white supremacists, quote, were responsible for more homicides than any other domestic extremist group. that was a finding by our government. white supremacists were responsible for more homicides than any other domestic extremist movement. white supremacist violence has swept across america and this trend raises the obvious question, why is it getting worse? we cannot deny that hate has a big platform. as we all saw in the video, there are media figures like tucker carlsen dragging racist conspiracy theories into mainstream america. more than 400 episodes of tucker carlson's show have amplified the so-called great replacement theory or conspiracy theory, a guiding principle of the modern white supremacist movement. as lawmakers, we must speak in one voice and repudiate this incendiary rhetoric, along with any individual or extremist group that resorts to violence. and, while there are no simple solutions for addressing violent extremism, a promising start is the domestic terrorist prevention act which i first introduced in 2017. i am sorry to say that the senate was unable to move this forward when i offered it, two weeks ago, but my hope is this hearing will mark a shift in our willingness to work together in combatting domestic terrorism. that is our obligation as lawmakers and that is our responsibility to the families like those in this room, who have lost a loved one to unspeakable acts of hate. with that, i turn to the ranking member, senator grassley, for his opening statement. >> thank, you mister chairman, this is our third hearing in this congress on this threat of domestic terrorism. march of last year, director wray of the fbi testified before us that the threat of domestic terrorism is really growing. six months later he testified to another committee that the fbi had 2700 active domestic terrorism investigations compared to the usual 1000. some of those 600 cases involve the capital riot on january the 6th. another is a tragic event that the chairman just referred to, the terrible attack by a young white racist killing ten in buffalo. one of those killed in that domestic acts of terrorism was ruth whitfield. her son is with us here today. nearly 600 advance were anti police riots that erupted in the dozens of cities in 2020. the fbi executive assistant director testified before us in january that 800 domestic terrorism investigations were opened as a result of the 2020 riots. that was five months ago, each time we speak with the fbi and the number has usually risen by a few hundred. however, due to the lack of federal jurisdiction this is only a small fraction of the 14,000 that were arrested just in the first few weeks. tens of thousands appeared to have participated in massive violence. i was truly surprised by the sheer number of americans that have been willing to engage in violence in support of anti police rhetoric. 2000 police officers were injured. 25 people were killed and there were two billion dollars in property damage with arson as the preferred tactic. for anyone who thinks violence and from political left ended in 2020, it did not. in may of 2022 a report by the center of strategic and international studies found that 40% of all domestic terrorist attacks in 2021 were from the left. for anyone that thinks that the violence from the far left ended in 2020, or began, in 2016 to black racists killed eight police officers in dallas in baton rouge in 11 days. according to a may 2021 report from the fbi,. ,. in 2018 and 2019 that was white, racially motivated and a violent extremism. in 2020 anti government extremism was the most lethal ideology. one concern of domestic terrorism is that the threat is always shifting, and violence comes from all sides of the political spectrum. an asian man drove a car into a peaceful protest in favor of fair treatment of african americans. the waukesha parade murderer in the new york subway shooter had delivered long, racist tirade against white americans before their crimes. i have said it before and so i say it again, we all have to contend all political violence. we have the time and resources to combat violence committed under the banner of every deadly ideology. we do not have to choose, we must combat all at the same time. we also have to protect speech, a fanatical bernard sanders supporter tried to murder republicans it in congressional baseball. i guess that was in the practice session getting ready for that game. agreeing with bernie sanders politically is protected buffer amendment. trying to kill others in support of that belief is not. i don't think any visitors tried argue that being a part sanders supporter made a person agreeable to terrorists because one person agreed with him was. we have as you fight feckless nick all-ing because we disagree over major issues. it is unfair to equate republican concerns over illegal immigration with race extremism. if we are going to come together to solve the problems of domestic terrorism we have to do so with an eye to solving the problems that truly exist. reorganizing offices within the department of justice that should not be reorganized does not do that. forcing reporting and focusing rick they're intending to force them to combat one deadly ideology more than the others will not help anyone. we have to listen to what is truly needed. those operating in the terrorism slim base have asked for a slew of authorities to help them combat international terrorism. i introduced an amendment to the ndaa last year to give them these authorities. but did not pass at this time. i hope it will this year when i again offer it. finally we have to come together to protect our won't enforcement officers. the same report that i mentioned already found that law enforcement officers have increasingly become targets of domestic terrorists from all sides of the political spectrum. the report states that government, military, and especially law enforcement where the primary targets of domestic terrorism attacks and plots in 2021. composing 43% of all attacks, law enforcement officers were the targets in many far-left events, 37% of the violence, far-right events and all jihadist events in 2021. i understand that from time to time, while our police and military are often the victims of an extremist violence, they, in turn are accused of being the hotbed of extremism. in may of this year we receive an fbi report stated, quote, available fbi reporting did not reveal rmve which is a racist extremist infiltration into law enforcement. and of quote. we have been briefed by the fbi that extremism is no more common in the military than the general population. it is not limited to white racism, but includes black racism, antifa ideology appearing within the ranks. if we are going to be serious about combatting extremism we need to be realistic that the threat is often from outside law enforcement, and the military and directed against them. not the other way around. in fact, these baseless accusations of widespread extremism in law enforcement and the military probably only strengthen the likelihood that innocent officers and service members will unfairly become targets for violent attacks. in 2018, numbers of antifa in philadelphia assaulted two marines, leaving than to be white supremacists. they were not, they were hispanic. it is important that those of us in positions to lead be clear. all violets will never be tolerated. i look forward to working together to do that. >> let me be clear. i agree with you, senator grassley. violence is unacceptable in this constitutional democracy. today we welcome five witnesses, i will introduce the majority witnesses and then i will turn to grassley to introduce the minority witnesses. garnell whitfield is the former fire department leader in buffalo, he tragically lost his mother, ruth whitfield, in the buffalo attack last month. mr., whitfield i know it's not easy for you to be here today in the midst of your loss and grief but we really appreciate you coming forward so that you can speak for many of the families and friends who had such a terrible time in dealing with this loss. we're also joined by professor robert a. pape of the university of chicago. in addition to serving as professor of political science, he's the director of the chicago project on security and threats. i first learned of your threats on one of your television presentations, i'm glad you could be here today to make a presentation. our final majority witness is mr. michael german, mr. german is a former fbi special agent currently serving as a fellow at the brennan center for justice, liberty and national security. ranking member grassley, would you like to introduce your witnesses? >> yes, thank you for that privilege. justin herdman is a partner in the cleveland office jones today. served as on that national district attorney for ohio from 2017 to 2021. he was jointly recommended to that position with bipartisan support from our colleagues, brown and portman. as u.s. attorney, mr. herdman was widely recognized for his success in fighting terrorism and violent crime. he was also vice chair of the attorney general's advisory committee. while a career prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office, he prosecuted the case of an artist bridge bombers. he also currently serves as judge advocate in the u.s. air force reserve. we thank him for his service and for testifying today. jonathan turley is shapiro professor of public interest law at george washington university law school. he is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to -- law. professor turley is a specialist in questions of separation of powers and the first amendment, among many other things. he has represented numerous high-profile clients in cases raising these areas of law. we also see his thoughtful commentary on cable tv several times a week. thank you for testifying today. >> thanks, senator grassley. let me lay at the mechanics of today's hearing. after i swear in the witnesses, each will have five minutes to make an opening statement. then we will have rounds of questioning, each senator will have five minutes each and i ask everybody to try to respect the time limits. now, i'm going to ask, as a tradition of the senate judiciary committee, for the witnesses to stand to be sworn. if you could raise your right hand. do you affirm the testimony you're about to get before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you very much. let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. mr. whitfield, i'm going to ask you to make the initial opening statement and then we will go down the table in order. >> thank, you sir. to the members of this honorable body, on behalf of all of the victims who were murdered or injured on may 14th and their families, we sincerely thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. though i will be sharing with you some of my families memories about my mother and the devastation her murder has wrought upon our family, the truth is that i'm speaking on behalf of all of the victims and their families. mrs. ruth whitfield was my mother. she was literally and figuratively the heartbeat of our family. and my father soul mate for 68 years. she was the person who held us together, probably just like your mothers did for your families. what i love most about her was the way she loved her family unconditionally. sacrificing everything for us. she would visit my father at the nursing home, where he has lived for the past eight years, almost every day. including on the day she was murdered. to ensure that he got the care that he needed from the nursing home and to supplement that care with their own personal and loving touch. our lives are forever changed. forever damaged by an act of profound hate and evil. and nothing will ever take away the hurt, the pain or the hole in our hearts. for her to be murdered, taken away from us by someone so full of hate, is impossible to understand and even harder to live with. but we are more than hurt. we're angry. we are mad as hell, because this should have never happened. we are good citizens, good people. we believe in god, we trust in god, but this wasn't an act of god. this was an act of a person and he did not act alone. he was radicalized by white supremacists, his anger and hatred were metastasized like a cancer by people with big microphones in high places, screaming that black people were going to take away their jobs and opportunities. every enforcement agency charged with protecting the homeland has conducted risk and threat analysis and determined that white supremacy is the number one threat to the homeland. and yet, nothing has been done to mitigate it or eradicate it. we are people of decency. we are taught to love even our enemies. but our enemies don't love us. so, what are we supposed to do with all of our anger and all of our pain? do you expect us to continue to forgive and forget over and over again? and what are you doing? you elected we elected you to protect our way of life. i ask everyone of you to imagine the face of your mothers as you look at mine. ask yourself, is there nothing that we can do? is there nothing that you, personally, are willing to do to stop the cancer of white supremacy and the domestic terrorism it inspires? because, if there is nothing, then, respectfully, senators, you should yield your positions of authority and influence to others that are willing to lead on this issue. the urgency of the moment demands no less. my mother's life mattered. my mother's life mattered. your actions here today will tell us how much it matters to you. thank you. >> thank, you mr. whitfield. professor turley? >> thank you, chairman durbin, ranking member grassley, members of the committee and the judiciary. it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the threat of domestic terrorism, a subject that should unite all americans. you will find no disagreement among the witnesses on that word at the end. while the maze may be subject to qualifications, we share a common purpose in combatting domestic terrorism. the powerful voice of mr. whitfield just now reminds us of how urgent this task is. i offer my testimony in that spirit, to try to identify areas of one of the pieces of legislation that should be addressed to deal with some constitutional concerns. extremist and violent speech is obviously not an abstraction for the people who work in this building. house members were shot in 2017, members of both houses had to be rescued in 2020 due to a disgraceful attack on the capital. we all have ample reason to oppose these violent elements on both the left and the right. however, the constitution doesn't pose some limits on the range of action for congress. i've tried to address those, ranging from the first amendment to the separation of powers. i specifically addressed the domestic terrorism prevention act. i know in the testimony that aspects of the act, in my view, are clearly constitutional. those include things like the reporting and assessment and training components. the one area that i flag is the prioritization of particular terrorism cases. that raises a novel question, it actually falls into a gray area of separation of powers. so, admittedly, that's gonna people of good faith on either side. but for congress to try to prioritize certain terrorism cases, i think, would run afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. and it is because the law uses a mandatory language in terms of dedicating resources within the executive branch for those. and there is obviously a powerful interest in congress, i am a matter story and scholar so i tend to favor legislative authority we. i still do in this area. there is countervailing legislative and functional issues that can occur under the separation of powers. because of the executive branches of the authority and the take care clause, the inherent article two powers. i think that those issues would lower marge if that legislation was an act in the way it is currently written. i also spent a considerable amount of time in my testimony on free speech. that is where i do a lot of my writing. i have been described as a free speech purist or absolutist. there was a time when that was actually a compliment. i admit to it. i have a very broad view of free speech. as i talk about in my testimony, we have a checkered history of free speech impairments and criminalization. it occurs at times when we are angry, when we are afraid, or when we are under attack. our history is replete with it. it began with john adams, who not only tried to criminalize opposing views but tried to execute those who held them. it went through the civil war, woodrow wilson and the palmer race, the enact of the espionage act. in each of those periods not one branch but all three branches failed the constitution. they allowed attacks to occur on free speech. it obviously occurred with the red scare and it continues today as people fall four forms of censorship, blacklisting, and criminalization of free speech. i believe that this expansion of terrorist investigations raises legitimate questions that we have to deal with. not to intrude upon those areas. that is a position that i have held for many years. many of the members of this committee know i have opposed broader interpretations of terrorism for 30 years. i have been one of the most vocal critics of antifa, one of the most violent anti-free speech movements in our history. i was one of the first two object of terror characterizing antifa as a terrorist group for the same reason. we have to be very careful not because we have different ends and situations but because in a system it is often very important how you do something,, more important than what you do. fortunately all the way living dangerous times we have a constitution designed for bad times, not a good time. indeed, the constitution was written in the worst of times. it is a covenant not with our government but with each other. it is a system we cannot assume is indestructible. it requires people of good face like yourselves to temper our honest motives to combat extremism and protect those things that also define us. i thank you again for the honor of appearing before you and i look forward any questions you may have. >> thank, you professor turley, professor paper? >> thank you for having me, mr. winfield is right. violent populism is rising in america. events like the target minority populations that target our democracy are not simply a continuation of long-standing but have a complicated extremist ideas moving from the fringe to the mainstream. if i could please have the next slide. i'm going to wait one moment to see if we can have the slides. there we are. if i could have the previous slide to that, thank you. a key extremist idea is the great replacement, at bottom the fear that extremists will have more rights than whites. as these ideas become mainstream domestic terrorism is evolving and more dangerous ways. in january six we witnessed senator mitch mcconnell to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. the witnesses charged with the le pen -- with the most loss of white populations share which would most likely share the great replacement as described by media leaders. and may 13th just three weeks ago a mass shooting appeared in buffalo, new york. where the shooter methodically selected its target in order to kill large members of a minority group related to his fear of the great replacement. these violent ideas are widespread in the u.s. population and we need to prepare for potential political violence in the future. next slide, please. >> the january 6th demographics, they're striking, over half of those charged with committing crimes on january six were other business owners and ceos or from white power occupations. they last time america saw middle class white involved in collective political violence was the expansion of the second kkk in the 1920s. next slide. nearly 90% charge will not members of militia and extremist groups like the oath keepers or the proud boys. next slide. their political geography is also striking, over half of those charged with committing crimes on january 6th came from counties that biden won, including large, urban, democratic strongholds like dallas, houston, new york city, chicago, san francisco, and los angeles. next slide please. the crucial features of the counties with insurrectionists as the loss of non hispanic white population. the more the county lost white population and became diverse, the much higher rate of that being an insurrectionists. why? increasingly, some politicians and media figures tell whites they are deliberately being replaced by minorities and destined to become second class time citizens. they can confirm this political and media narratives and have impact beyond electoral politics. next slide. the buffalo shooter is a prime example, the shooters manifesto clearly describes his motive as targeting a minority population to prevent what he perceives as, quote, the complete racial and cultural replacement of white americans. next slide. importantly, the shooter lived in new york. which had one of the largest decline in non-hispanic white population share since 2010. nearly 8%, this underscores that white population decline can influence individuals with violent populist settlements. to understand the risk going forward we conducted a national representative survey with the respective polling form at the university of chicago, just weeks ago. next slide. we asked sir respondents whether they agree that joe biden stole the 2020 election and is an illegitimate president. and, whether they agree that the use of force to restore donald trump to the presidency is justified. as you can see, tens of millions of americans agree with these radical settlements. next slide. most disturbing, we found that 7% of american adults, which equates to 18 million people, agreed both that joe biden's illegitimate and that the use of force is justified to restore trump to the presidency. this is important. a key indicator of long term political violence in a country is the pool of the population that sees political violence as justified, and so this figure is extremely concerning. next slide. the two main beliefs our number one, the great replacement, 75% agree with that, and second the qanon cult idea. next slide. we did look at economic and other factors. the great replacement and qanon conspiracies are the far more powerful drivers. last slide, please. we need to go beyond prosecution after the fact to prevention. our country needs annual public airports by law enforcement assessing incidents in which people from across the political spectrum from neo-nazis to antifa turn to violence that we can better understand the extent and source of the greatest threats. our country needs a national conversation based on the facts about the consequences of violent ideas moving into the mainstream. ultimately the solutions to violent populism are the pillars that have always guided our great american democracy. dialogue and listening to each other. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank, you professor, mr. lee herdman? >> thank, you chairman, and thank you ranking member grassley for the invitation to speak before the committee at the vital issue of domestic terrorism. i spent nearly 20 years of my professional career mostly as a federal prosecutor but also in the military in the counterterrorism field. i bring just one perspective on the work before the committee, i believe my experience as a federal prosecutor in the northern district of ohio is of particular relevance on this subject. neither the district of ohio comprise the 40 northernmost counties of the state and is a true cross section of modern america. i had the honor of serving this district as a justice department official. first as an assistant united states attorney from 2006 2013, and then as united states attorney from 2017 to 2021. the title of this hearing is fitting, i believe, in my career i have seen the nature of the terrorist threat metastasize. by that i mean that the threat has both spread and incidents are occurring at greater frequency and changed. the nature of that threat includes different actors offering new challenges to law enforcement. the tools brought against terrorism and particularly domestic terrorism had to adapt as well. to help illustrate the changing nature of the terrorism threat i would point to a few cases from my district and which i either worked directly as a prosecutor or supervised as u.s. attorney. my early work as a federal prosecutor in the offices nationals of curate unit was primarily devoted to investigating and prosecuting cases involving international terrorism. by that time in ohio we head seen an uptick in violent extremism with no connection to terrorism. one connection, in 2012 a group of five men who were self proclaimed anarchists considered a variety of attacks. ultimately they attempted to detonate an explosive device at the bottom of a bridge in ohio. a bridge that spans a deep crossing and their intent was to bring down the entire bridge. in 2013 i was part of the trial team that prosecuted joshua stafford, who is the only conspirator from that group who went to trial. in addressing my tenure as u.s. attorney and the threat we faced, i would like to address the dangers posed by what's promises. either in an organized or individual capacity. that threat is profound and it is pervasive. in 2019 it what's premises named james ryan was arrested for filming himself with a nazi era firearm. over audio of multiple gunshots and screaming people in the background, threatening a mass shooting at the jewish community center of youngstown, ohio. this is a fitting place to pause as the jewish community is one with which i work very closely as u.s. attorney. what's promises pose a ongoing threat to our jewish friends and neighbors but they are not the only threat. a case are prosecuted office in 2018 demonstrates the serious threat picture faced by americas jewish communities. damon justice was a resident of toledo, ohio, he was a recent new convert to islam and a member of the violent jihad. he became increasingly radicalized in the fall of 2018, after the attack on the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh he conducted surveillance on two synagogues and planned violent act at those two locations. he ultimately pleaded guilty to federal terrorism and federal hate crimes charges. which as far as i'm aware it was the first time of prosecution for both of these offenses had been pursued. i raise the case because i think it illustrates the grave threat posed to the united states and law enforcement by a post of violent actors. the threat picture that emerged while i was u.s. and tierney was incredibly complicated. well whites from sea and violent jihad has a cohesive set of work principles that ultimately forms and ideology, i saw several cases that define easy categorization because of nonexistent ideologies. for example, elizabeth -- and vincent armstrong were a toledo area couple who had a deep fascination of the columbine shootings. the couple visited columbine high school and overtime the sikh obsession with that event moved into active planning for a mass casualty attack at a specific toledo bar. they separately tried to acquire an explosive device against a gas pipeline. they were arrested in 2018 and convicted of attempting to provide material support for terrorism in violation of a law. to mark cases, christian ferguson and alan -- were both arrested in the separate cases. ferguson was planning to lie in wait for one enforcement officer and plan to capture or kill them when they responded to a false 9-1-1 call. and -- had a attack plan for a ohio high school. i focus on these cases but there are many more from my tenure as u.s. attorney that kept me up at night as a federal prosecutor and continue to do so today though i am no longer a justice department official. i appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and i look forward to any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. german. >> chairman, ranking member grassley, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about what's promises problems in the -- i would like to express sympathy for the family members of those killed in buffalo and all those targeted by white supremacist or struts. i have been working on this problem since 1992 in the fbi assigned me to infiltrate neo-nazi skinheads elves trafficking in illegal weapons and committing acts of violence. while recent attacks had raised public awareness of white supremacist and far-right militant violence, it is not new. it has been enduring threaten united states and its founding. the law enforcement response remains deficient despite deadly results. the fbi does not even collect incident data regarding violence committed by domestic violent extremist groups. professor pape discussed the great replacement theory which is also not new. i agree it is too easy to blame social media for spreading racist conspiracy theories as they are and always have been part of our political discourse. part of our mainstream political discourse. policing that this question of be a law enforcement matter. the vast majority of people who traffic in racist, darius should not present a threat of violence. they should be targeting their instrumentality. it seems intuitive that social media monitoring might provide clues that could help law enforcement prevent that attack. after all, they whites promised attackers in buffalo, pittsburgh, and el paso oregon access to materials online and expressed their hateful and violent attentions on social media. if somebody had reported that activity to law enforcement it is presumed the police could have acted to present an attack. threatening rhetoric is commonplace, not just on social media. and the buffalo case, threats the shooter allegedly made in the school were reported to law enforcement, resulting in a psychological evaluation but no follow-up. perhaps that was because broad scale social media monitoring and they see something say something programs raise so many false alarms that it drowns out threats, overwhelms law enforcement, and dulls the response. law enforcement tendency to downplay the threat of white supremacy as violence may have also played a role. unfortunately, what counterterrorism experts acknowledge the lethal threats in the fbi's domestic terrorism program, law enforcement has a history of prioritizing lesser threats. particularly protest movements led by people of color, civil rights activists, peace activists, and environmentalist. failing to produce domestic terrorist incident data leaves the justice department and the fbi free to set priorities for the institutional biases. i've law enforcement is to be effective in addressing white palaces violence, it is essential to better understand how the violent element within the wets promises movement operates. congress has done its part to provide the fbi with all the authority it needs. 51 federal crimes of terrorism, five federal hate crime statutes. organized crime and conspiracy statutes. the problem is that the justice department at the fbi choose not prioritize what's promised violence. they obscure the data that is necessary for reform. if white supremacy is murder somebody the fbi could consider the crime and act of detective terrorism and violent crime. if the fbi categorized it as domestic terrorism in the investigation will be well resourced and robustly investigated. it often puts white supremacist violence into lower prioritized programs such as civil rights and violent crimes. whereby justice department policy, most incidents are referred to as saying local. police reform investigation. one senator durbin released the prevention act in 2017, seeking specific data about militant violence in the fbi's use of its domestic terrorism resource. and resources, the fbi instead shuffled its domestic terrorism target categories to obscure this data. the justice department also hides that data. it provides different attitude progress when it claims domestic terrorism successes. the senator sued to get these numbers by the justice department refused to provide them all, claiming that not all prosecutions that it claims as domestic terrorism statistics are domestic terrorists. the true nature and scope of white supremacy is a must be understood in order to establish affective reforms. congress needs better data about this violence, and more transparency about how the justice department and the fbi used their domestic terrorism resources. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thanks, mister chairman, thanks to all the witnesses. i'm going to start with the five minute rounds. professor, great replacement theory is nothing new, some form of it has been around forever. in the united states we have seen evidence of it with the activities of the ku klux klan during reconstruction and even into the 20th century. i grew up in east st. louis illinois in the early 1900s with the great migration. there was a visceral reaction against the african americans lead to a race riot into that city, as well as my current hometown of springfield, illinois. that led to the creation of the naacp. we have seen this many times over. the only question comes to my mind is, is this a different time? do you find in your research with the social media approach to information in america exacerbating this situation? can we add to that the old and that it weapons, that we are giving to these mad men who are inspired by this racism? the means to kill so many innocent people as they did in buffalo. that the difference? >> there are two big differences, first we have volatile capabilities, those are the weapons you are talking about. now combined with volatile ideas and believes in the mainstream. it is not one or the other but we do have a combination of these two. which is why we are seeing many more of these events in the united states than we are in britain. this is a very important combination that is a deadly cocktail promising more violence going forward. the second big changes that we are now seeing those who advocate for the great replacement receive political benefits, and financial benefits. if we look at politicians, politicians in america in the mainstream are either directly or on indirectly stressing the great replacement and becoming more popular. donald trump, the former president of the united states, is more powerful today as a result of january 6th that he would have been without january 6th. that is a very, very worrisome trend. media figures, you just showed a number of them, they are more popular today as a result of the great replacement. what we are seeing is incentives for more politicians, more media figures to follow in those paths. these are the two big changes today, and why we have to be so concerned about the 2022 and especially 2024 election seasons. >> mister chairman, let me ask you, we really have a challenge to respect the constitution, our bill of rights, and freedom of speech. and yet we see the reality reported to us by law enforcement here in washington across the nation. many of these statements are pushing people into extreme behavior, violent behavior. there is no easy way to find a line to be drawn to respect the constitution and keep america safe, what are your thoughts? >> i think that the concept of terrorism and radicalization that the fbi and justice department have embraced is not established in and evidentiary study, my own experience working undercover they were people who were ardent neo-nazis, had memorized quotes of hitler speeches and were very influenced by the ideology. others just like to make bombs. this was a group that appreciated their bomb making skills. understanding how the violent element operates and how it networks is much more important than understanding the ideology, because there are lots of people who adopt this ideology who are actually against violence. i had people who were ardent nazis find out who i was hanging it with in the movement and put their arm around me and say, son, you are hanging it with the wrong people. come work with us. we will print up a newsletter that we can put out every week, we will put a suit on you and run you to the school board. we can do things that do not involve violence, that will get you killed or put in prison. that will not help the movement. it is critically important for law enforcement to understand these differences and understand how the violent element works. my concern is this radicalization theory pushes law enforcement who want to grab more information from social media or other public forms of communication, rather than focusing on -- in which millions of people share these bad ideas. instead of focusing on the relatively smaller number of violent acts and understanding how the network. one of the things that the brilliant case agent who worked by first case with me was able to do in los angeles was map all of the violent criminal acts that were occurring by white supremacists. show how there was some connection to lots of fun pieces of the investigation. today because the fbi puts these in different categories, more often than not the first the state and local investigators who may or may not prosecute those crimes. they do not have knowledge of how the criminal element works. unfortunately they do not seem to want it. there have been plenty of opportunities for them to collect this data about violent crimes to understand it better. they choose not to. that is part of the problem. >> it is the point you made earlier and one that i will close with. the reason for the domestic terrorism act that i introduced was the decision of the trump administration to no longer have a category of white supremacist crime reported to us. they merged it into a violent crime general category so that there would be no distinction. i believe more information is better. particularly when it does not expand the authority of the government or give any new tools. it reports on the reality of what is happening across america. thank, you mr. german, senator grassley. >> yes, mr. herdman besides the bridge case you have been involved with the riots that broke up in 2020. the fbi lacked the familiarity with the antifa movement to see violence or new riots coming. something both barr and wolf warned about when they were secretaries. you have also seen threats from white racist, jihadists, and afters with anti-law enforcement ideologies. how do we ensure that the department of justice and the fbi are nimble and flexible? at least enough to respond to threats of violence caused by different ideologies. how varied is the domestic terrorism threat right now? >> thank you, senator. the bottom line is if you are in federal law enforcement you have to look at the conduct and the threat as it is being contemplated. you look to the violent act. you look to the planning and the preparation. frankly, the ideology matters far last when you are trying to disrupt a terrorism event than the actual conduct of the perpetrators. it has to be that way. ultimately, at trial, the ideology or whatever is motivating that person to commit this act is important. it is motive evidence and you would want it before the jury. you would have to have federal law enforcement posture to identify and respond to actual conduct by individuals. that requires well trained agents and prosecutors, that requires close coordination with local law enforcement. that requires close coordination with communities, particularly vulnerable communities like i mentioned in my testimony. the jewish community among them. muslims as well. a whole host of communities of color and ethnicity that are under threat. you have to be able to respond. and also, i would add, senator. you have to be flexible in the way you can take complaints. it is very important for federal law enforcement to be responsive to complaints from the public. and, to ensure that they are able to prioritize and respond to complaints that are brought to their attention. >> professor, is it constitutional to direct executive branch officers to investigate in combatting violence of some extremist ideology more than others? >> i think that it is, at best, problematic. i actually think it runs afoul of separation of powers. i admit this is that sort of gray area. separation of powers is not dramatically sealed. there are overlaps between executive and legislative. i think this would not fare well in terms of trying to force a priority between individual cases. the supreme court has said over and over again. cases like queen that even though this body itself has investigatory powers it cannot intrude upon the case of targets and development of priorities given two particular areas by the executive branch. that is pretty consistent coming out of the supreme court and lower court cases. that is one flag i threw on. i think that congress needs to seriously consider as someone who represented one of the houses of congress. the other house in litigation, one of the keys is that you do not want to go into litigation unless you have a fairly clear idea of how you will come out. you do not want to create precedent against your own institution. i would not view this as a very good course for this body. i think that courts would look with this favor on the effort to force that executive branch to prioritize particular types of cases within a category of terrorism. >> mr. herdman, is it helpful >> i would always err in favor of flexibility, senator. there are, in a moment's notice, the entire threat picture faced by federal law enforcement in the united states could change, it could change as a result of an international incident. it could change as a result of some domestic political event. and i think, you know, federal law enforcement has to be able to respond in a way that addresses the threat as it exists today as opposed to what it was yesterday or what it was in preceding years. we just have to have that kind of flexibility from federal law enforcement. >> mr. herdman, you noted incidents where civilian communities such as local jewish community in cleveland, were targets of attack. you formed strong partnership to help to disrupt those threats. we're seeing that police are increasingly becoming targeted for extremist violence. i've introduced a bill to gather more information on attacks on police. what else can we do to combat the rising tide of extremism, violence directed against the police? >> this is a real area of concern. and again, this is one of those things that does not depend on ideology. if somebody is willing to engage in a violent attack they've almost always contemplated some sort of engainment if with law enforcement and that is unfortunately perpetrators when they're seeking to kill, capture, law enforcement. i would be supportive of any federal effort to look into the incidents of terrorism directed at law enforcement and i also certainly would be supportive of any federal measure that would seek to criminalize attacks that are made with the intent of killing law enforcement because of their status. >> and thank you, senator grassley. senator leahy. >> thank you, senator durbin. i appreciate you holding this hearing because i find is difficult to comprehend we're still in this position. we're having the same conversation we've had for years now about domestic terrorism, the racist ideologies, violence that is spreading across this country with little or no check against it. each day and each week seems to bring new tragic incidents, increasing number committed by individuals who hold white supremacist ideologies. no one should be afraid of being murdered because they went to the grocery store or went to their place of worship, or when they go to work, even here in the united states capitol. and yet, that's the reality facing millions of americans every day. the heinous mass shooting in buffalo last month, painful reminder of domestic terrorism, motivated by white supremacists is still very present and it's spreading in the united states. that's not hyperbole, that's the fact. the fbi reports the number of hate crimes in 2020 was the the highest recorded in two decades. nearly half of the domestic terrorism investigations that year involved racially motivated violent extremists. 87%, 87% of the subjects of those investigations are white supremacists. now, we have another tragedy, 10 individuals killed in buffalo while shopping at their local grocery store. something we all do and it should be the safest place, but they died at the hands of an individual who had been motivated by racist conspiracy theory. there's going to be accountability for these crimes. we also have to add to get to the root causes of this growing hate. and the opening the chair stated we need not look further than certain political leaders and pundits that fanned the flames of these ideologies, in doing that gives them the sheen of legitimacy and mainstream validation. we can be hardbroken, but we must be resolute because lives are dependent on the flames perm nating our country. and we pray for the victims. in my state we pray that the congress will come together and pass real laws that will protect us. and we have to stand up to misinformation. we have to act together. this should be above politics. and mr. whitfield, i was so moved listening to your testimony, what you said about your mother, ruth whitfield. my heart goes out to you and everybody who lost people at the tops friendly markets grocery store. i think your parents married 68 years, i think of that as i'll celebrate this summer my 60th anniversary. you said your mother was the heart and rock of your family and i know what that means. what would you like us to know about your mother ruth and how your family has been impacted by that loss? >> thank you, senator. i'd like you to know that my mother's life mattered. i'd like you to know that there's nothing that we can do to bring her back. i'd like you to know that she didn't deserve to be murdered. i'd like you to know that she was-- while she was yet alive, equally frustrated with the banter and the discussions that have gone on for years about white supremacy and inequitities within our society and while she was alive, she spoke vigorously against it. we're here to carry her legacy forward. and to do what she's no longer able to do. we're here to ask that people here to do their jobs. to live up to the oath that they took, to serve and protect the people of this country. that's what we're here for. we're not here to ask for favors. we're not here to debate this. this has been going on -- you know this didn't start with my mother's passing, this has been going on my whole life. i was born black and i was treated differently from the day i was born in this country and it's time we stood up and recognized that. it's not okay. and we can't keep ignoring it. thank you, sir. >> i thank you. and we pray we'll do the right thing for all americans, but in my family for my black grandchildren and my white grandchildren, i pray we do. >> thank you, senator leahy. senator lee. >> mr. chairman. >> i'd like to start with you, if that's okay. and you recently wrote about the cases of two attorneys, calling for mattis and rahman. each of these two defendants facing domestic terrorism charges based on allegations they'll thrown a molotov cocktail into a police vehicle during the antifa riots during the summer of 2020. despite pleading guilty last year to one count of possessing and making an explosive device which, as i understood it should have carried with it a 10-year minimum sentence the biden administration if i understand correctly a new plea agreement will result in a few years of prison time. professor, are violent attacks on police officers with explosive devices under this circumstance, are they domestic terrorism events or are they domestic terror threats? >> well, they certainly can be under the definition that you have at 18usc2331. it can fit into that. you know, there are arguments to be made why they decided to downgrade that case from terrorism and the plea that you referred to didn't receive a huge amount of condemnation because it was still, as you noted, a plea to an offense that was a 10-year offense. to keep in mind, one of these individuals was trying to hand out molotov cocktails for other people to throw them and the other one, when she was arrested said that, was unapologetic and say they only understand violence, when we speak through violence. these were quite strong cases captured on videotape. so it was spriting when the department of justice said we'll let you withdraw the earlier plea and then plea down. as a criminal defense attorney i thought it was really quite a stonnishing, i've done national security litigation, i haven't seen anything quite the double step down to go to remove the earlier plea. so i think it was very controversial and i'm saying that, i want to emphasize, i think that people of good faith can say that the original designation of the case is terrorism. i could see arguments that this should not fall within that definition. people of good faith can disagree on that. it was the step down from the original plea that was so astonishing for some of us. >> okay. one of the things that i worry about with all of this is that anytime-- i mean, anytime there is an act of domestic terrorism it should be prosecuted, domestic terrorism is bad regardless of what ideology happens to flow from it. and one of the concerns that i've heard expressed about the domestic terrorism prevention act concerns that have been attributed to department of justice career attorneys in reviewing the legislation is they worry that this could artificially constrain the department's resources directing them toward one particular ideology over another. with domestic terrorism, as in so many other areas of criminal law, there is high likelihood that what's big one year might change the next year. what's happening a lot in one season of one year might change in the next season of that same year. so my concern would be, if we start adopting legislation that directs our activities, devotes more resources toward one particular ideology over another, that might leave prosecutors flat-footed when the circumstances change, and that could create other problems. now, mr. herdman, what would be the practical result in your view of various executive office reorganizations that would be required within the department of justice under the domestic terrorism prevention act? >> well, i think, you know, what one concern that i would have is from the perspective of, i is a, a rabbi in suburban cleveland, whether the threat to my synagogue is from a white supremacist or a violent jihadist or some other group, that doesn't matter to me as the fact that there is a threat exist tent and federal law enforcement has to be able to respond to that particular target. i would worry about escalating or elevating a particular threat profile because you may unintentionally lose sight of other threats. i think it's better to have a flexible response, senator. >> while i've got you on this point. in the aftermath of the extensive violence that occurred in the summer of 2020, particularly in portland, oregon, federal prosecutors brought actions, they brought federal charges against 97 defendants. now there were other defendants who were charged in connection with those riots, many of them in state courts. these 97 were just the federal charges brought in that district. 58 of those 97 have now been dismissed. now, i note you're a former u.s. attorney. when i was a federal prosecutor it was-- it would have been unusual to dismiss such a large percentage of any category of indictments that have previously been issued. but if 58 of the 97 have been dismissed it has me scratching my head. do you have any idea why these cases against those particular violent extremists were dismissed in such high numbers? >> i really don't know enough of about those cases to reflect on it. the only thing i would say is what our guide posts were when we were federal prosecutors, did the facts fit the violation of the federal statute. if they do, you look at federal prosecution. i don't know enough about it. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator lee, senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome to the witnesses, particularly mr. whitfield, at 86 your mom deserved a hell of a lot better. i want to welcome mike german if particular back to the committee when he got off with undercover work he was one of the agents in our fbi field office and had the chance to see the quality of his work firsthand and great to have him here. couple of questions, let me start, doctor, does history show incidences when violence against a population was preceded by propaganda against that population? >> yes, sir. northern ireland is probably our key case we should focus on. in northern ireland there was community support for violence among catholics in the late 1960's immediately preceding the rise of the ira. >> so let me jump in and ask if a lesson of history here is also that sometimes the propaganda against that population is deliberate? >> yes, sir, the key part of the deliberate that matters, and this is also critical in the great replacement, is the intentionality that's attributed to the after being evil, malicious. saw when you saw on the video that senator durbin showed it wasn't simply claims of demographic change. the core part, the anger that creates the violence is the malicious intent ascribed to those political actors. >> and mr. german, are there indications that propagation of great replacement theory is deliberate? >> certainly. and i think it's important to make a distinction between people on the internet saying things that are troubling, people without any position of authority, and authority figures saying those same things because when an authority figure says that, somebody who has actual power, it presents a different opportunity to somebody who chooses to be violent. that they're no longer criminal, they are part of a government faction that is encouraging them to commit this violence so that the calculus they have to make is much easier to make, which is why i think that they could amass such a large amount of people that they could actually overwhelm the capitol police and assault our democracy. so, i think that those -- having authority figures repeat these racist conspiracy theories is what is different now from when i was working these cases. >> so, let's go back to before authority figures start repeating these theories and let's go back to their propagation. i believe dr. pape suggest their history shows that before you get to violence against a population very often there's a deliberate campaign of propaganda targeting that same population with the purpose, often, of fomenting that violence. you've said that there are indications that propagation of great replacement theory is deliberate. if there are indications that great replacement propaganda is deliberate, are there indications not just of what authority figures might be spouting it, but about who is creating it and pushing it out into the internet and into society? >> again, the great replacement theory isn't something new, right? european colonization of the quote, unquote, new world was a white supremacist program. the white supremacy was part of our founding and part of our history, so these ideas have all the been there. i mean, one of the things-- >> yeah, but it seems that they have a lot more currency right now and it looks like -- there's been a lot of talk about how much this has spread on fox news, for instance. do you think that fox news is creating this as original content within fox news or do you think there are entities or an enterprise of some kind that's creating the content to be fed to fox news, dr. pape? >> once we have these ideas in the mainstream, sir, the mechanism of their propagation is not a little secret cell somewhere or, let's say russian bots. it's the incentive structure of the system. what we are seeing is we're seeing that figures who tout the great replacement are being rewarded by becoming more popular after their shows touting the great replacement than before. >> what we're seeing are politicians becoming more popular, receiving more votes, by touting these ideas than before. what we're specifically donald trump, our former president, highly unlikely to have the political power he has today were it not for january 6th and the ideas underneath that. so, what we're seeing, sir, is once these ideas move into the mainstream, the mechanism is no longer a secret cell organization that we've got to root it out, it's unfortunately the incentive structure and that's why we need a big conversation in the country about this because otherwise that incentive structure is just going to drive to us more violence. >> with my time expired let me follow up with questions for the record. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. ms. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whitfield we all express our condolences to you and your family for your loss. mr. herdman, i'd like to come to you and kind of pick up where senator lee left off. when we talk about the requirements, the domestic terrorists prevention act proposed puts in place on doj, fbi, you're looking at the organizational structure of the agencies involved in this and your work and experience as a u.s. attorney, your experience leading that group in the advisory committee, talk to me a little bit when you look at reorganizing the changes that are mandated, how that affects the resources, and then the structure at the agency and out in the field, just very quickly, kind of wrap that up. >> well, those-- any reorganization or restructuring is necessarily going to drive substance and what the ultimate outcomes are going to be. so, if if there are changes that are mandated by fbi headquarters, for example, that trickle down to the individual field offices, where there's a prioritization of one type of crime or one type of motivation over another, you would expect to see as you would in any large organization, the individual members of that oranges. >> okay, so let's go back to that as far as that trickle down goes. and the-- from the comments of professor turley and also from you. looking at this legislation, it appears that it would narrow the focus instead of expand the focus looking at domestic terrorism. and i think that we want to make certain that all forms of domestic terrorism, that there are eyes on all of those threats. and someone had mentioned earlier the need for flexibility in the agency. so, pick up from there. >> yes, senator, na that was me, i think, that talked about flexibility. and i'll point to what we should expect from law enforcement is fact. i don't think that ideology is as important when you're focusing on facts. you want to see what the conduct of the individual is, how imminent the harm is and most importantly what they're planning to attack so you can help defend and protect it. and that is devoid of any sort of analysis of the ideology because you have to focus on what the person is capable of. as i pointed to in my written testimony. plenty of cases where people had no discernible ideology, but put our friend and neighbors in northern ohio at risk and we had to respond to that. >> professor turley, i wanted to continue. you talked earlier about free speech and political free speech and you've always been an advocate for protected political speech. so, i'd like for you to talk a little bit more about how law enforcement can differentiate between political free speech and extremist threats as they track and investigate and mon store terrorism. >> thank you, senator. the -- i think that the key distinction here was drawn by mr. german, but also miss herman, that it's not ideology, but actions, it's what people are doing that the fbi has to discern we have a wicked brew of hate in this country. the only common denominator are people consumed by hate and the fbi has to go and try to isolate what are the threats that are greatest against the country. and the concern from the free speech community and i'm not alone in that, the a.c.l.u. reviewed the expansion and more expansion from the a.c.l.u. of domestic terrorism investigations. the concern is if you tie a particular ideology as a criteria or element for an expansion of domestic terrorism, section 2331 is fairly general. when you read it as a civil libertarian, sort of alarms go off because, who you wow, you could put more in this provision and one understands you have to write more generally, but the application of that language is really important. so if you combine focus on ideology, it really raises concerns among the civil liberties community. keep in mind, some of our worst period of time had that trigger. we were arrests communists, anarchists and socialists because their views were viewed as dangerous to the country. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ink that all of our witnesses and mr. whitfield, our deepest condolences to you to the loss of your mother who sounded like an incredible person. we have been talk ago lot about the ideology that drives the kind of mass shootings in our country, but in listening to some of the responses to questions, i think the large factor and a large part of the kind of mass shootings that occur in our country has to do a lot with regardless of ideology with the easy access to guns we have in our country. i'd like to ask of each of you, do you agree that the easy access of guns is part of this in our country. start with you and go down the line. >> thank you, senator, yes, absolutely. gun access is certainly a driver of this violence. it's certainly a large part of the problem, but i would say that it becomes under the banner of white supremacy. it's one of those things that are contributing to it. >> yes. >> and there's a lot of other things, you know, that would come under that banner. >> we could even set aside the ideology although i agree with you, the rise of white supremacy in our country is part of that. >> there's no question we have a country awash with guns and hundreds of millions of weapons in the country. the task that i'm working with a lot of members with right now in terms of finding a way to do that constitutionally, there are limits and we're waiting for a major decision from the supreme court that may give us some insight into what the range of movement can be under the second amendment. >> well, we know that the supreme court has acknowledged certain limits based on second amendment rights. >> and without a doubt. since 2015, we have five mass shootings around the world related to the great replacement, killing many people. four are in the united states. that is almost surely due to the easy access of weapons that can kill 10 and more in very rapid period of time, compared to the rest of the world. >> mr. herdman? >> senator, every case that i described for the committee involved at least the contemplation of acquiring firearms for the actual attempted or acquisition of firearms. so, they do, like they do with any other type of violent crime on the federal level, when we're dealing with federal firearm statutes, we're almost always looking at a gun at the center of that violation. >> you'd agree easy access to guns in our country is a problem? >> i'm not-- the characterization of easy access is one that i-- >> well, it's pretty ease any our country compared to a lot of other countries. >> i only becaused. there's one days i'm thinking of where the individual did not purchase a firearm because they had a fire felony conviction, one of the cases i described today. >> mr. german. >> yes, i believe the easy access to firearms is contributing to mass shootings and writing to my colleagues, and a center fellow have produced on this issue. >> so, based on the relative unanimity of acknowledging that easy access to guns in our country contributes to signs of horrific shootings that we should do something about to provide -- limiting who can get guns and limiting access to guns. professor pape, you mentioned, you noted in your testimony that violent populism is rising in our country. do you think that this trend is going to change anytime soon? if not, why not? if so, why? >> if we don't do anything, if nothing changes, i'm worried that, yes, it's going to continue into the future. a point about guns, ma'am, if i may. we are now in the worst of both worlds. we are pushing gun legislation that will almost surely not pass, that's just my view as a political scientists, but what it's doing, and this is according to our data on our nationally represented surveys, it's making those individuals who would have the violent sentiments even more concerned and more dangerous. so, we need to be aware that it is not a free move to simply call for legislation on guns that goes nowhere because there are many people in those 18 million that i point out, who are already concerned the federal government is coming for their rights. see if we push legislation which goes nowhere, what we're doing is inflaming the problem more than we're solving it. very important to see. that's inside of our data. if we go forward and look at the next several years, the system, as i was just explaining to the other senator, we have a system now where once these dangerous ideas are in the mainstream, there are incentives for mainstream media figures and mainstream politicians to propagate them even more and those incentives are not exactly they want violence as much as there are benefits, and we've seen this in india and northern ireland where politicians and media figures push dangerous ideas to gain votes or media popularity and they accept or they don't notice or they don't understand that it's also creating violence as a byproduct. that's what's dangerous about the next few years, as we go forward, we have created a system now where these ideas are in the mainstream. they are no longer in the fringe and there are incentives for both political leaders and media figures to continue to propagate those dangerous ideas. >> i agree with you, professor, that this is a complicated situation. on the other hand, if we -- i realize there are a lot of attitudal and cultural things going on in our country and the kind of violence that we see. on the other hand if we do not enact some kind of legislation, for example, hawaii has some of the strictest gun safety laws and hawaii has the lowest incidents of gun violence in the states. and legislation, i agree with you if we don't enact gun safety legislation that i would say tends to exacerbate the situation, but what if we passed some of these laws? i think it would be a big help, don't you? >> yes, absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thanks, senator hirono. senator coons. >> thank you for holding this important hearing. to mr. whitfield. thank you for sharing your memories of your mother. new for helping all of us understand the kind of life that she led, the way that she offered personal loving, caring support for each and every member of your family, the way that she traveled to care for your father and to make sure that he was in good hands, the way that he inspired your lifetime dedication to public service and in addition to offering my condolences, i just want today thank you and your siblings for what you're doing to put your pain and your loss to a positive purpose, to come here and to call on all of us in congress to take concrete steps to combat terrorism inspired by the ideology white supremacy. nothing that i can say or that we can say here will lessen your loss, but i hope you know that we hear you and we are taking your message and the witness that you and your family have offered our nation to heart. >> thank you, sir. >> let me ask two questions if i might of other witnesses before i run out of time. professor pape, so much of our political rhetoric is cranked up to the extremes on the end of our political spectrum and some then lose perspective on the profound impact that the words of elected officials and poiticians have, as you've cited all over the world in history that marginal figures are popular and rewarding for their feeding and ideology of hate. and some like the replacement rhetoric discourse and those over and you talked about how many the insurrectionist stormed our capital, our police officers, and threatened to hang the vice-president, your purchase shows a connection between individuals who choose violence and insurrection and specifically those individuals who stormed our capitol on january 6th and the county in the country where the white population is declining compared to a more diverse population. do you believe the mainstreaming of political rhetoric that echoes this great replacement theory contributes to the spread of violent populism. what do you think that we have an obligation to do, those of us who are elected, in terms of calling out and denouncing that great replacement theory? >> i think an important analogy is slobodan milosevic, he was the serbian leader in the '70s and '80s, a minor figure until in the late '80s, the great replacement idea in syria he said muslims are gaining so much demographically, that they're replacing serbs, white serbs, that made him more famous and that concept led to one of the most disastrous civil wars in europe's history in bosnia. >> and ultimately genocide. >> ultimately genocide. it was hard to see the roots of that in, say 1986, 1987, even in 1989 when he gave the famous speech that many of you will recall. but this is the danger of those ideas because they take on a life of their own and that's really what's important. yes, sir, i do think that we have an obligation as a country and it's our political leaders, it's our community leaders, it's our university leaders, not just one side and not a law enforcement problem. by the time the perpetrator has acted, too many are already dead as we are seeing around this room. we can't wait and just act after the fact. the key here is to have a national conversation, are we willing to tolerate these dangerous ideas in our mainstream when we know they are already associated with what's happened in bible study group 2015, the cases, i think i'm seeing the families already know. we've already got that evidence in front of us, sir. we need the conversation to, are we going to accept this as a country or not. >> and so, if i might, mr. german, just to follow up, this is a country that will never outlaw dangerous ideas, but has to take action against dangerous actions, and finding that balance, if i might, mr. chairman, i think is important. you've spoken to how the domestic terrorism prevention act would provide critically needed assistance to identify, locate, prosecute actions by these dangerous theories that need to be denounced by mainstream political figures. help me understand both why that's an important component of a law being proposed by the chairman, and how you think congress and law enforcement can strike a balance that preserves treasured civil liberties while protecting against a rising tide of white supremacist domestic violent extremists? >> i think what's important is getting the data. there was discussion earlier about giving the justice department and the fbi flexibility to address what kind of violence is occurring. the problem is with that flexibility, there has been an active deprioritization of the most violent threat. so today the fbi can't tell you how many people white supremacists killed last year or the year before that or the year before that because they don't collect that kind of incident data. if you look at -- if the fbi characterizes these crimes as violent crimes or hate crimes instead of domestic terrorism, that's deferred to state and local investigation. so they don't even know what happens there, they don't collect that data, but in the federal system, the justice department prosecutors white supremacists mostly through the violent crimes programs. i stay mostly, but significantly through the violent crimes programs. so you have cases where dozens at a time, violent white supremacists are arrested and that doesn't go into the terrorist statistics. so the problem is the data, to the extent that the terrorism act requested that data, i think that's critical to understand where those should prioritized because it's absolutely correct, there are other ideologies that people claim and justify their acts of violence, but we have to know which area to amass our resources and if we're not amassing our resources to the most violent threat we're not satisfying the obligation of the justice department and the fbi have to protect. >> thank you, what i hear you saying is that this horrific violent act, this shooting that took so many lives, innocent americans, just enjoying their freedoms going about shopping at a grocery store doing nothing wrong. if we don't do more as mainstream political leaders both parties at all levels to stand up and speak out against this great replacement theory and if we don't do more to empower law enforcement to track, to report, to investigate and to take action against these who become violent, who are motivated by the theory, then we're failing this moment and our nation. thank you, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator coons, i'd like to add because there's quite a bit said about the domestic terrorism prevention act which failed to move forward on the floor of the senate. a bill introduced several years ago, the bill reports to congress on all, all underlying domestic terrorism activity with a breakdown by specific category. the categories include, members may not have seen this circular, but include racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government, anti-authority violent extremism, animal rights, environment violent extremism. abortion related extremism, all of the forms, what we did in the bill i brought to the floor was require that white supremacist terrorism being restored as that's categories, eliminated under president trump. that we're keeping it generic is not true and delineates reestablishing a category. senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. whitfield, it shatters me that you have to be here and the pain that you and your family are enduring is unimaginable. i want to thank you for turning your pain into purpose coming down here has got to be very difficult and the fact that you're testifying before congress on these issues just shows me what kind of mother you had. i was also kind of moved, i walked in late to the hearing coming from a classified briefing and i heard you talk about very candidly what it was like growing up as a black man in america and how you realized very young that you're perceived as more dangerous, often, that that's often used as justification for people taking police action. we know that blacks are more likely to be killed by the police. we know that implicit racial bias, you have study after study that shows a black person, white person in this country accused of the same nonviolent drug crime, the black person will get longer sentences, we know that even black women in this country are more likely to die in childbirth, even when you control for race and education because their pain is not perceived to be taken as seriously, and the kind of subtle dehumanization that often comes and what's moving to me about you is that you understand that this is not about black versus white, this is us, we're all in this together. and that we are a nation that needs each other far more than we realize. and i think on that fateful day in buffalo we realize the danger of allowing hatred in any form in our country to fester because that hate is not just visited upon one, its effects and impacts are felt directly by families and communities, but tears at the fabric of our overall democracy. mr. pape, i think your testimony was really moving to me because this is about the hope of our democracy. it really is. i have never imagined that i would be this worried about the future of our country and the mainstreaming of these ideas begins to undermine the necessary cohesion for democracy to function. this is a great question in america's history and every generation seemed to answer it the right way, will we get better at being a multicultural democracy. will we not let the hate of the irish, the hate of catholics, the hate of southern europeans, the hate of asian americans, will we not allow to that undermine the highest ideals of humanity that this country represents. so i feel like we're on a perilous precipice. i think that so much of this when i turned on my tv and saw that the january 6th riots, so many of them had anti-semitic symbols and racist symbols. and so, i know from your data that you had that this is not militia and those are all concerns and thank my colleague for bringing up the ease of access to guns to cause the violence, and that we should not ignore that reality, but i'm more concerned about the culture of contempt we have in our country and you said something and i want you-- i don't want to create false equivalencesy, but i know me as a politician probably would have raised a lot of money if during the state of union address if i yelled out an expletive to donald trump something like you lie, i know this because it happened to president obama and that person had the best fund raising quarters after did he something bringing in that kind of outrage into our sacred civic space in a congressional hall for a presidential speech. so i guess the two things that i want in my 10 seconds left, is one is driving this point home that this is not about us versus them, this is about the continuation of our country. of our democracy that we are inching closer as this hatred and this contempt, culture contempt spreads and then i'd like for you to close by just telling me, you keep talking about the limitations and your skepticism about us doing certain things, but what should we ultimately be doing at this body to try to bring this nightmare that we're all experiencing in real time to an end? >> the crucial thing, senator, is to compare this to the 1920's, when we also had great replacement ideas. then it was catholic versus protestant and led to the second kkk. . difference, sir, is the greater polarization of the country now. we are having political log jams today in ways we did not in the 1920's. and that is what's creating -- it's almost impossible now for our political leaders to come to agreement on these major threats to our democracy. what we need to do is we need to break through those log jams and i can tell you the importance of it. >> how? what's your antidote? what's your advice? >> the obvious thing to do to build from the center and build working groups of the senators who can really work together the most and to build out from there and then to build a national conversation from that group regardless of what happens in the outcome of the 2022 election or so forth. the difficulty is that the electoral pressures are so intense, that it's getting in the way of any serious governing, sir. and this is what's different between today and the 1920's. in the 1920's we also had these types of threats, we did not have the degree of political polarization that we have today and we've got to find ways, even as we're polarized to focus on the center going forward. >> so i'll just say in conclusion, mr. chairman, there is a toxin and i agree with your prescription, and i think it's going to take thousands of acts of humble grace to begin to cure what is all of these pressures, however, i don't know when the very algorithms that are built into our social media, my friend van jones and newt gingrich when they wanted to a segment on cross fire, cease-fire, cease-fire was making ratings go down. we want the entities that want to germinate outrage and hate it sells better. creates greater audience participation. this is the trap that we're in that's germinating hate and it has infected in body as a whole. the only correction you have to you is i think the onus is on the acts of grace of this body, but i honestly think if it's just this sector and not media and business and culture and churches, if it doesn't go all the way down to our neighborhoods we're lost. so, that's the only hope we, are not only and not only our enemies, but greatest hope and greatest promise for getting out of a trap. if not, god bless america, but we're in peril. >> thank you, senator booker, senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to each of the witnesses here today. you know, there ought to be at least three propositions on which all of us can agree. number one, violent crime is always unacceptable and should be punished severely. number two, hate is wrong. and number three, the machinery of the federal government should not be used as a tool to target and persecute your political opponents. all three of these propositions should be ideas that bring us together regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. unfortunately, we see over and over again efforts to politicize acts of violence. when it comes to white supremacy, when it comes to vicious hate groups like the klan or the nazi party, in my view, they are unequivocally hateful, bigoted, racist morons who should be denounced and despised. i do think my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle try very hard to erase the history of the klan, that it was formed by elected democrats, that its leadership was almost entirely elected democrats, that the authors of the jim crow laws were without exception elected democrats. and i also think today's congressional democrats try to use the charge of white supremacy which is undoubtedly evil, bigoted and wrong and weaponized by their own party, they try to use that as a proxy for attacking a political party they disagree with. and they do so by diminishing anti-jewish violence, anti-asian violence, violence directed at white people, violence directed at police. my view is simple, violence is always wrong. whatever your ideology, left wing, right wing, no wing. if you're seeking to hurt people, it is wrong. is violence from white supremist extremist organizations a problem? absolutely, as is violence from other hate groups. the brooklyn subway shooter was a known black supremacist who called for racial violence. the waukesha attacker who murdered six people to a christmas parade was a bigot. 2016, another black nationalist gunned down five police officers in dallas. i was there with president obama at the funeral for those police officers. he did so unexplicitly mm on the grounds. and people were gunned down in a kosher grocery store. san francisco in the past year, 567% increase in anti-asian violence. anti-jewish hate crimes in new york city are up 148% in the first quarter of 2022 compared to the first quarter of 2021. and then of course, we have the violence of the antifa riots and the black lives matter riots that racked this country. and stores were looted, police cars were fire bombed, people were assaulted, people were murdered. my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle sought to excuse, sought to apologize for, even went so far as raise money to bail out of jail the violent rioters committing these acts of violence. when it comes to violence, the department of justice should not treat it as an excuse simply to target the political opponents of whatever administration is in power, republican or democrat, but instead violent crime should be prosecuted vigorously across the board to keep people safe. mr. herdman, you personally prosecuted the anarchist bridge bombers, five left wing extremists who broke off the occupied protest and plotted to bomb a bridge in the cleveland area, is that correct. >> yes, senator. >> can you describe that case and what you encountered there? >> well, it was an evolving threat picture. there were a number of different attacks that were contemplated as i spoke to my written testimony. there were discussions about going to chicago and engaging in attacks on n.a.t.o. or g8 summit that was held that year and they also discussed attacks in tampa with the republican national convention held there that year and ultimately settled on a bridge in the cuyahoga national valley park and a group gathering one night may of 2012 in order to bring that bridge down. >> if your judgment, do policies that result in giving a slap on the wrist to violent criminals and violent terrorists that release people who commit riots and acts of violence, release them with minimal to no jail time, do those policies protect society? do they keep us safe from violence? >> one of the advantages of being a federal prosecutor we typically got people held on bail and typically had strong penalties when they were convicted of a federal crime. if we were going to hold somebody accountable for violation of federal criminal law those were my expectations as a federal prosecutor they would be held on bail and get a severe sentence as a result of the violent crime. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator durbin went to vote and so i just want to start out by noting that the intelligence community has identified racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists as the category of people most likely to conduct mass casualties attacks. i think we have an agreement on that. but one thing that wasn't noticed and this is just one year of statistics, but was not noted by senator cruz and that's that the fbi reported that of the racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists it was investigating in 2020, so let me be very clear about the category, 87% were white supremacists so i think it's important that the record reflect that. it's certainly not all of them, but it's at least for the recent years that we have data on, it was the majority of them. so getting back commissioner whitfield, i am so sorry for your loss, i understand that your mom was a loving and devoted mom and wife, and that she was at the market buying groceries for your dad who is in a nursing home. and i can't imagine what you, your father, the rest of your families are going to and i just want to respect your courage for coming forward and speaking today. and want you to know that there's a lot of us that are on your side here and want to take action. and while there's nothing we can do to bring back your mom or the other victims at the grocery store, how can our response to this tragedy help you, your family and your community to heal? >> thank you, senator. first of all, by calling it what it is and not, you know, sweeping it under the rug and beating around the bush. it is white supremacy, and it's a problem. and though this young man though he pulled the trigger, others loaded the gun. others fed him. others radicalized him. all of the things that we're talking about here today contributed to his racist evil behavior. ... contributed to his racist, evil behavior. until we start holding those entities accountable and calling them out, we're not going to be able to do anything about this. there's a lot of talk about, whether you deal with the ideology or the acts, the truth you are going to after the facts all of the time. how do you stop at? you have to deal with the ideology. you have to start at the root if you're going to ferret this thing out. soop if you're asking what you , i don't have the answers but we have to call it what it is. where to start identifying what the issues are and address them and have real conversations about that. have to face these things. >> thank you for that. mr. german, white supremacist violence as just pointed out, thank you very much for that, mr. whitfield. white supremacist violence is a nationwide problem. in minnesota white supremacists bombed the islamic center in bloomington, minnesota. law enforcement, justice department including the fbi worked for years to solve the case, working through the years and not giving up. and they found those responsible and brought them to justice, and it turned out that the perpetrators were part of a larger domestic terrorist militia which specifically target the muslim community because they wanted to driveth muslims out of the u.s. can you talk about why it is important for law enforcement officials to identify crimes as domestic terrorism, getting to the point that you just made, when they occur? because of the signal that sense but also the importance of categorizing in keeping track of the crimes in that way. >> thank you for the question. yes, i think it's critically important to understand the and focus, for law enforcement on the acts. it's come for the rest of us and for the people in positions of authority to denounce hateful ideas and conspiracy theories for the lack of accuracy there, but for law enforcement they need to focus on the actual criminal activity to make sure that they are not infringing on first amendment rights of people who are just expressing their ideas. but there is plenty of that activity out there that law enforcement today puts into different buckets that deprioritize or don't even have the fbi and justice department looking at, and that's the critical part is whenn you do call things like and make sure that this information isn't being lost because of provides intelligence that can be used to help prevent the next one. >> thank you. welcome back to the committee, mr. herdman. the fbi led joint terrorism task forces which operate alongte wih u.s. attorney's office across the country on the front lines over to address domestic care. during the hearings that i chaired that investigated the january 6th attack on thess capitol, we found a key issue in the run up to the attack as you know was a failed to share information between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. we know that wasn't the cause but, in fact, we learned that we had to do a much better job in how we responded. based on your experience as a former u.s. attorney what are the ways that federal law enforcement can best work alongside state and local partners when it comes to domestic terrorism? >> thank you, senator. president of the jakey gs is essential project of local and state law enforcement present if you're running an fbi field office. sharing of information either through a state fusion center or through other bulletins that can go to local law enforcement again very critical to make sure that information gets out.e also a much unheralded part of this is regular communication with the political leadership particularly municipal leaders. i think that's a very critical element of the jttf work in according with local authorities to ensure that mayors, , counsel people government else is responsible for public safety functions in a given city or area are aware of what the potential threats are. >> another questionn of you, mr. herdman. in testimony before the senate intelligence committee in april 2021 fbi director wray noted that comical, social media has become in many ways they key amplifier to domestic violence, extremism, end quote. because this information can spread quickly among i like-mind people because of the algorithms, because this set itn up. the weight of done this in which they profited greatly at the expense of so many people. you believe social media has made it more difficult to counter disinformation that can radicalize people and inspired them toch violence? has made it more difficult to counter disinformation that can radicalize people and inspire them to violence? >> yes, i think that's undoubtedly true. social media probably has not made a lot of things better in america, but it certainly has not played a positive role when it comes to spreading disinformation and potentially radicalizing people who do harm to others. >> i think it's one of the reasons that many of this on this committee, on a bipartisan basis and throughout the senate, are focused on this. whether it is allowing researchers to look at the algorithms, that senator coons is leading, and many, many others are looking at that amplification issue. because the amplification actually means profits for them and it means that hate speech and violent speech and that kind of thing is spreading, which has led of course in part too many, many deaths. so, anyone else want to answer that question? yes, you, professor. >> i think it's important to know, senator, that in our research, our nationally represented surveys that find the 2018 and 21 million have insurrectionists sentiments to this day in our country. it's not mainly a social media problem. i understand social media is very potent, i'm one of the terrorism researchers who pushed that with isis, four, five, seven years ago. i'm a very big believer that that can matter in certain circumstances. it's important to note today, however, that for the 18 million with insurrectionists in our country in just april, 40% report fox news and newsmax as their major news sources. only 18%, facebook, youtube and twitter. just 10%, far-right social media like infowars, gab and telegram. i'm not telling you that pound for pound the viewer of fox can be as stimulated as the viewer of infowars. what i'm telling you is that there are so many more viewers in the mainstream. the problem here is the mainstream. it's a very difficult problem to get around, but it is something that we need to confront. if we just simply keep thinking, this is just another social media problem -- >> i don't think anyone, i may be the first one bringing this up. i just want to say, i don't think anyone is saying that. what i'm saying is that we know that these killers have basically posted online, they posted warnings, many of, them online. and then they've actually posted videos of them committing the crimes, because that is a reality, that virtual reality is the reality. for us to just turn our backs to that and not think that it has something to do with this, i just think is wrong. that's where they're seeing the ads, by the way, for the guns with santa claus and star trek figures and star wars figures. that's where they've seen them. as horrible as all of this is, and that mr. whitfield has to listen to here, at its core this is about white supremacy. what happened in buffalo, we all think there is some widespread agreement on that. not just about guns but it's also about how the information is being transmitted and our inability in this chamber to do one thing about it. because we've done zilch, zippo, nothing. i just want to make that clear as we go ahead that this is also part of the solution. so, thank you. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. i had a vote on the floor, i thank you for covering a lot is gone. senator padilla? >> thank you, mister chair. i want to thank you for creating the form of this committee, to scrutinize the racist rhetoric in online spaces that are fueling the rise of domestic terrorism in america, in addition to the mainstream outlets that mr. pape has repeatedly reminded us of. as we're doing this, i think it's not just appropriate but necessary to consider easy access to guns in america. it is jointly enabling these violent extremists. but in buffalo, the perpetrators weapon of choice, after the radicalization, the weapon of choice was an ar-15. that enabled him to turn his hatred into carnage. just this past weekend, mister chair, as you know as well as i do, there were at least ten more mass shootings, violent incidents that meet the definition of mass shootings. ten! at least 15 people died as a result, at least 60 were injured. that's not to mention the countless others, friends, family members of the victims and others who are now terrorized for fear that it could have been them or it might be them next time. but in those very communities, and across the country. i've said it before, we've said it before, we'll see say it again. this has got to stop. this violence, this carnage is unacceptable. our children deserve better. now, turning to my questions but. over the years we have seen a growing reliance on the internet, life on the internet. most notably, but not exclusively, but most notably social media, to spread racist conspiracy theories and to radicalize and recruit domestic terrorists. first question is for mr. german. and your written testimony, you show your belief that racist conspiracy theories are often hiding in plain sight. and that reporting the spread of these theories and relevant threats of violence to law enforcement could help prevent future attacks. however, you also note that the sad reality is that the fbi receives thousands of tips concerning violence on social media each and every day. in light of this reality, what are your thoughts on how local, state and federal law enforcement officials can play a more strategic role in identifying credible threats of violence against americans? >> thank you for that question. i think part of the problem is that the fbi and congress reduced the criminal predicates necessary to start a mastications. so, by removing the need for evidence based triage, they're actually saying that there is evidence that a crime may occur. that was the standard that i worked under. reasonable indication that criminal activity may be occurring. remove all of those through the changes to the attorney general guidelines and and legislation like the patriot act opened up the floodgates so that see something, say something became the policy. the fbi had a policy of responding to every single allegation that came in over the trans some. what this does is, just like pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire is illegal because we know it dulls the response, this tends to dull the response. the agents responding tend to believe this is going to be a false alarm, just like all the others. i'm going to do the least i could do to close this when i move to the next one, because i have more piling up in my inbox while i'm out cleaning this up. i think that is the problem. restoring those criminal predicates would help the fbi and state and local law enforcement triage these incidents better so they can focus where there is actual evidence of criminal activity. >> thank you. i was going to acknowledge that the new york attorney general has announced that her office is launching an investigation into the social media companies whose platforms were used in planning and live streaming the shooting in buffalo. i was going to ask what additional suggests is you have for disrupting the pathways to radicalization. you've talked about modifying the criteria to begin an investigation. anything else, before i move on to my next topic? >> i think one thing to keep in mind is that social media is a double edged sword for violent people on the internet, right? yes, it helps them spread their message, but it also leaves a permanent record that is evidence that can be used against them. oftentimes, what we see is these platforms are very leaky and that data is out in that data was helpful to civil litigants who brought a case, civil case, against the unite the right rally organizers. because they had access to that material. likewise, the fbi had access to that material but you didn't see them making the same efforts to prove conspiracy cases in the unite the right case, except in one exception. so, i think that is the problem, that they need to use what evidence there is and follow-up when there is actually a violent crime. most of the people who committed violence of the unite the right rally weren't ever prosecuted for it. so, that is part of the problem. in portland, as was mentioned before, proud boys and other far-right militants were coming across state lines to commit violence in portland for years. the lack of law enforcement attention is what enabled them to have such strong networks that they could mobilize to, according to the government allegations, organize the attack on the capital. so, it takes actually looking at the evidence of that criminal activity. but too often that gets ignored. >> one more if you are finally when white shoe i've by me. because -- i don't dissent last year that america is a nation of immigrants. that. our story since the birth of this nation. and i believe that the diversity of our country as a result is a source of incredible strength. no, in america, we believe that we are all created equal. and should enjoy equal rights. so it's deeply disturbing to me to see right-wing media figures, to your point, professor, as well as politicians, including the former president, prompting racism, hatred, and division in the united states of america. sometimes subtly, sometimes not subtle at all. so it's important that we shine a light on to these frightening ideologies that fuel domestic terrorism so we can stop the spread of violent hate. professor pape, in your written testimony, you state that, and i'll quit, that some politicians and media figures tell whites that they are deliberately being replaced by minorities and destined to become second-class citizens, and that minorities will have more rights than whites. and just the reference to second class citizenship sort of implies that there's a first class citizenship. so i'm going to focus on the work of place actually, because of that use of that word replaced is very purposeful. >> yes. >> and very powerful. so in your studies, just expand on how you found individuals who believe in and promote replacement theory, how they may believe they are more deserving of citizenship for that first class citizenship, and there was of another race. >> yes? so senator durbin showed that in the beginning of the hearing, some is very prominent examples of exactly what i'm referring to, senator. what i'd like to do, though, is tell you about the focus groups that we have conducted that i haven't told the committee about yet. and i think you might find this even more interesting, because i'm sure you're going to be able to find the clips in the media. the focus group, so we have not just been serving the population, we have been serving focus gripping people in that 18 million. and what we have discovered is many of them are able to repeat almost word for word the kind of dialogue that you, senator durbin showed in the beginning. and it's about how the democratic party is deliberately replacing whites with non whites, and it through immigration, through other policies. and it's also about how they feel that they have a target on there that has been lights. and they feel like they are beginning becoming second-class citizens in their own country. so it's not simply the media media language that i'm reporting to you, sir, in those couple of sentences. what do you don't see is underneath that the 80 focus groups attacked we have conducted, which is providing evidence after evidence of the power of that media. and i would just suggest that as a follow on hearing, it would make a lot of sense to focus directly on the role of the great replacement in mainstream media, and to bring on the actual of people with academic researchers and we can have a real discussion of why is it those folks in the media don't think they're increasing violence. let's have a real national conversation. >> and last, just out of curiosity, can you give a couple of examples of what rights are we talking about? what rights do whites think that they are going to be losing potentially are -- >> absolutely, sir. so let me just -- i can't, because of confidentiality,, i can tell you their exact names. but let me just give you somebody who is 69 years old, email in connecticut, who owns 1 million and a half dollar home, beautiful, complaining about how he is the son of an immigrant, he comes from immigrants, but what's happening now is a result of the great replacement, is that his political rights are being -- >> we will leave this program here and finish watching@c-span.org. the january 6th select committee is getting ready to start their second hearing. this was originally scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. eastern by the start time was moved when one of today's witnesses, former trump campaign manager bill stepien come had to cancel due to a family emergency. the committee now expects this to begin closer to 10:30 a.m. eastern. we will stay right here in the room to watch as attendees, witnesses and committee members arrive. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are live waiting for this january 6 committee to begin. among the witnesses a former fox news political editor chris stirewalt. today's hearing was supposed to start about 30 minutes ago but one of the witnesses had to cancel due to family emergency. that was former trump campaign manager you stepped in. now expecting parent to start in about 15 minutes, 10:45 a.m. eastern time. if you do step away from your tv today you can continue watching the january 6th committee hearing on the go with the c-span now app, our free mobile video app. and reminder of the january 6th committee hearings and all of our c-span program is brought to you as a public service by these television companies including dish network, comcast, and charter. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and live coverage from the cannon house office building waiting for the second the of the junior six select committee to begin. it's the first of three hearings this week, going to be hearing from witnesses today, tomorrow and thursday. we will be showing each of days hearing again in the evening on the c-span networks. if you miss the live coverage going today. testimony from former fox news political editor chris stirewal stirewalt. due to a family emergency former trump campaign manager against stepien will not be appearing at schedule today. he was to testify under subpoena instead his lawyer will be making a statement on his behalf. we're expecting the hearing to get underway and about five minutes. if you do step away from the tv today you can continue watching the january 6th committee hearing on the go with c-span now, our free mobile video app. and a reminder of the january 6th committee hearings and all at c-span's program is brought to you as a as a public sey these television companies including dish network, comcast and charter. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,United Statescapitol ,District Of Columbia , ,Brooklyn ,Illinois ,Emanuel Church ,Wisconsin ,Cleveland ,Ohio ,Minnesota ,Whitehouse ,Syria ,Oregon ,San Francisco ,California ,Connecticut ,Germany ,Springfield ,Islamic Center ,Houston ,Texas ,Dallas ,Chicago ,Hawaii ,Americans ,America ,Serbs ,German ,Serbian ,American ,Santa Claus ,Jonathan Turley ,Joe Biden ,Woodrow Wilson ,Vincent Armstrong ,James Ryan ,Los Angeles ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Catherine Massie ,Ruth Whitfield ,Aaron Salter ,Slobodan Milosevic ,John Adams ,El Paso ,