Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On U.S. Park Police Clearing Protesters From Lafayette Square In... 20240712

Opening statements at hearings are limit to the chair or the ranking minority member or his designee. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore im asking for unanimous consent that all of the members Opening Statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the clerk by 5 00 p. M. Today. Hearing no objection so ordered. Without objection the chair may also declare a recess subject to the call of the chair. As described in the notice statements, documents or motions must be submitted to the electronic repository hnrc. Mail. House. Gov. Additionally please note in all full person meetings members are responsible for their own microphones. With our fully inperson meetings members can be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise. Anyone present in the hearing room today must wear a mask covering their mouth and nose. The speaker of the house and the sergeant at arms acting upon the recommendation of the attendant physician require face coverings for all indoor gatherings over 15 minutes in length such as this committee meeting. Accordingly to maintain decorum and protect the safety of members of the staff the chair will not recognize any member in the hearing room to speak who is not wearing a mask. According to house rule 17 and Committee Rule 3d, the chair retains the right of recognition of any member who wishes to speak or offer a motion. This right includes the responsibility to maintain decorum. As should be noted it is permitted by the sergeant of arms through his guidance that exceptions for members briefly removing their masks to facilitate lip reading by viewers who are deaf or hardofhearing. Finally members or witnesses experiencing technical problems should inform Committee Staff immediately. With that i will now recognize myself for the Opening Statement. Today we continue examining the june 1st decision by park police to remove Peaceful Protesters around the area of Lafayette Square. At our hearing last month witnesses told us that Law Enforcement officers assaulted Peaceful Protesters and journalists without warning using tear gas and batons. We heard that the clergy at st. Johns church were forced off their own property for President Trumps own photoa op. Many questions remain unanswered. Who gave the order and why, who ordered police to gas and assault nonviolent protesters. Was it a premeditated plan to dominate the baltal scene as an Administration Official describes it . Buzz the nonviolent crowd given a clear warning and a safe way to leave . We hoped the administration could help us answer these questions at the june 29th meeting. They refused to testify, so im very glad that mr. Gregory t. Moynihan, acting chief of the u. S. Park service is here with us today. Were also fortunate to welcome major adam demarco. Your presence here is very important and shows much courage, and i thank you for your decorated service to the country which includes your participation here today. As the events have shown Lafayette Square was a test run for what is an illegal and ongoing crack down by the Trump Administration that is being inflicted in cities across this country and attempts to escalate those confrontation rather than deal with and admit what did occur on june 1st what was wrong the administration is doubling down on its response to unarmed civilians in cities like portland, and despite the mayors demands in portland that they leave but we saw with civilians being abducted off the streets without probable cause and without insignia or identification on the part of Law Enforcement that took them away. And questions continue about chicago, albuquerque, new mexico, where the president has threatened to use a similar tactic. President trump has said hes sending these forces because they are run by democratic mayors. This raises a crucial question. Was this park police led assault on june 1st motivated by partisan hostility directed from above to those demanding justice for george floyd and so many other black men, women and children and a very Diverse Group of people exercising their First Amendment rights from the washington, d. C. Region. My friend and our friend john lewis made one of his last public appearances at the scene of parkland protesters only six days before the june 1st incident. He spent his life doing what most of us know is the right thing, fighting for fair and equal treatment of black american and all americans. And i believe its all our duty in congress as americans and as human beings to assure others fighting dont suffer the same brutality mr. Lewis had to endure for his quest of fairness and equity for all people. I think we can do better and we can be better, and thats why were here today. Now let me now turn to the designee for the Ranking Member. Sir, the floor is yours. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Were here today really at what can only be apt to the democrats political theater regarding the events at Lafayette Square. Even just the nature of todays title that somehow the u. S. Park Police Attacked Peaceful Protesters is ludicrous. The assertion that these were peaceful protests is completely ignoring the facts. We know there were acts of arson. There was vandalism. There were assaults on Police Officers in the days leading up to june 1st. This is even acknowledged by the democrats second Panel Witness in his written testimony which states the witness learned that federal Law Enforcement officers from park police and u. S. Secret service had sustained injuries. However, todays hearing title does aptly note there are some Unanswered Questions. I was confident these would remain because the one witness that might be able to answer it was not in the previous hearing and the majority knew that and continued with the hearing for show. Were honored to have you with we appreciate you testifying before the committee. You might not have all the answers today but well probably be able to provide some of the facts that were missing from the previous hearing on this topic, so were grateful for that. My hope is well be able to see beyond the bias scope thru which the democrats are viewing these actions and establish a truthful history of what happened on that day. For example, we need more details about the warnings provided and the opportunity protests were given to disperse. In the last hearing democrats claim there were no warnings heard, but a cnn reporter Kaitlyn Collins live tweeted, quote, park police are warning protesters to leave. Theyve given three warnings over a loudspeaker that tweet came at 6 32 on june 1st, so who are we to believe . But we cannot talk about the events of june 1st in a vacuum. What plans were made prior to june 1st about expanding the perimeter . How did the levels of violence and distraction factor into the decision . We should also compare the scenarios to other protests that have occurred in the city. Americans frequently exercise their rights to assemble and protest in washington, d. C. We have a number of examples from the womens march, march for life, march for our lives just to name a few. The difference between those events and the events at Lafayette Square are the acts of violence and destruction. While the predetermined narrative surrounding the events at Lafayette Park and other events occurring through our nation outlines a story of Law Enforcement squashing rights the reality of the situation is quite different. In this case and in others Law Enforcement agents acted to secure an area and restore peace taking reactive measures after acts of violence and destruction. The provokers, the true call prts responsible for thwarting peaceful protest are the vandals and rioters. Bad actors have hijacked an Important National conversation to push their agenda of violence and disorder. If were looking to lay blame those are the individuals you 1st. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Now, we will turp to our first panel. Mr. Gregory moynihan has been with the park police or the department of interior Law Enforcement over 23 years. Thank you very much, chief, for being here today. Ill just remind the witness under our Committee Rules you must limit your oral statement to five minutes but that your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. The light confirms when you have one minute left and when your time has expired. The chair now again thanking chief moynihan for being here with us today recognizes acting chief moynihan for his testimony. Sir, the floor is yours. Chairman, Ranking Member bishop and members of the committee, my name is greg row moynihan, and im the acting chief of police for the United States park police. The United States park police is the oldest uniform federal Law Enforcement agency in the United States and provides Law Enforcement Services Including the protection of visitors and park resources to designated National Park service areas. Primarily in washington, d. C. , new york city and San Francisco metropolitan areas. Here in washington that includes the National Mall in Lafayette Park on the north side of the white house at 8th street between 15th and 17th street northwest. Each year the United States park police facilitates hundreds of First Amendment demonstrations and special events in and around the district. Some with permits and some with not. To ensure the safety of the public and the protection of National Cultural assets. In facilitating these demonstrations the park Police Partners coordinates with numerous Public Safety and Protection Agencies within the National Capital area. In the days following the death of george floyd videos from witness and cc tv became public and ultimately led to protests in cities throughout the United States and abroad. The district became the focal point for demonstrators. And one of the most highly concentrated areas of protest was in and around Lafayette Park, which is recognized as a public forum for speech and assembly. The park police is accustomed to managing large and occasionally unruly demonstrations throughout Lafayette Park and as well as throughout the National Capitol area. We have obligations to protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators, maintain law and order and keep our Law Enforcement officers safe. Beginning on friday, may 29, public use of Lafayette Park violent demonstrations occurred between may 29 and june 1 and included projectiles aimed at Law Enforcement officers including bricks, rocks, frozen water bottle, lit flares, fireworks and 2 by 4 sections of lumber. The violent protesters injured 50 officers from the United States park police alone. 11 of my officers were transported to area hospitals, and three of them were ultimately admitted. The unprecedented and sustained nature of violence and destruction associated some of the activities in Lafayette Park and surrounding areas required deescalation. And into sunday morning may 31 the u. S. Park police decided to temporarily restrict access to the park and the adjacent streets and sidewalks by ordering and installing antiscale fencing across the north side of Lafayette Park. The installation of the fence met deescalation goals while enabling First Amendment activity to continue. Once we made that decision ings tlgz of the fence was dependent on two factors. First, we were required to have sufficient officers on scene. An assessment of the violence and danger presented by the crowd led to a clearing of the park and the installation of the fence. The park police has faced criticism, however, interest installation of the no scale face on the north side of Lafayette Park was a key tactic tat served to deets clescalate violent behavior of bad actors. New York Daily News i believe the United States park police acted with tremendous restraint in the face of severe violence from bad actors who again caused 50 of my officers to require medical attention. The decision to install the fencing was in furtherance of commitment of that deescalation. Thank you and i look forward to answering questions the committee may have. For the testimony im reminding the members of the rule imposing a fiveyear lim m limit on questions. The chair will recognize the chairs of the subcommittees and then proceed on a first come first serve basis going forward. With that let me turn to mr. Huffman for your five minutes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chief moynihan, welcome. You have spoken a lot in your testimony about the time frame from George Floyds murder until june 1st, and youve talked with respect to Lafayette Park about the period between your words between may 29th and june 1st. This committee and hearing is focused entirely on june 1st and the crinology matters. Are you suggesting some of these violent incidents by protesters, the throwing of caustic liquids and bricks and projectiles and harming officers occurred on june 1st . So, yes, sir, i am. From june 1st and throughout that opragdsal period we sustained violence from a number of bad actors in Lafayette Park and 8th street. Can you provide this committee with documentation of that because that directly contradicts other firsthand evidence we have including video. Now, did that happen before or after 6 35 p. M. Where your officers and others began advancing on protest snrz. The level of no, did the violence youre referring to happen before 6 30 p. M. . Yes, sir. I understand the question and the violence we were subjected to was throughout the entire operational period. We really do want to see that evidence, sir. Mr. Moynihan, youve been with the park police so after 13 years of litigation you ended up almost 13 million to Peaceful Protesters you had invanced on with forceful means. As part of that legal settlement the Service Police were required to make significant policy changes. Are you familiar with that sentiment . Yes, sir. And there are four significant parts of that legally enforceable commitment your agency made. The first is officers must be positioned in the rear of the crowd so they can actually hear the warnings that are given before the police advance. The second is that they need to use sound amplification as needed, and third, that they need to warn the protesters that they are in violation of a specific law. Theres a subsstant requirement part of that warning. And fourth, maybe most significantly for june 1st the arresting officers positioned in the rear of the crowd are required to a verbal and or physical indication to the officers in the front giving that warning so that your officers can confirm it was audible and it had been heard by the protesters. Were all these procedures followed on june 1st all right, i want to get your direct answer. And you say everyone of those procedures is followed. Im going to ask to play a video that we believe suggests otherwise, mr. Chief. So id like staff to play the clip. A voice on a loudspeaker briefly cuts through the noise. The announcement appears to come on the southeast part of the park. Even on the front lines of the protests the words are drowned out. Protesters turn to one another in confusion. Mr. Moynihan, could you understand the warning recorded in this video . Could you hear it . Was it audible to you . You must have super human hearing because i dont think any of us could hear it, and wouldnt you agree just from our own eyes we could see protesters who were clearly confused who didnt appear to be told they could be danced or or in violation of a specific law. Do you feel that was understood by protesters as evidenced by that video footage . I think when you take into account video footage theres context. And based on other video i viewed from june 1st and specifically around this time frame throughout the first warning through the third warning you can see a number of demonstrators leave the area and heed the warning that was given from the Incident Commander chief moynihan, we do look forward to getting the evidence that backs up your account of this, buts it seemed the park Police Ignored their own legal requirements in the settlement to follow these procedures almost as if they wanted the crowd to be confused so they could go in with maximum force and perhaps appease a president who just hours earlier urged police to act that way. I yield back. Thank you. Let me recognize mr. Westerman for your five minutes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chief moynihan, thank you for your testimony. This hearing is about politics, and i apologize to you the ares of the officers and United States park police for having to ensure a political attack. Ful they colleagues across the aisle were concerned about Police Reform i dont think their colleagues in the senate would have described senator tim scotts bill as a token bill. I dont think the speaker would have dismissed it as attempted murder or whatever word she used about senator scotts bill. Were here today to find out facts not to play politics with a serious situation. My colleagues are supporting defunding police. They seem to have no problem with defacing prubl property. And we all agree americans are allowed to protestfullyple like the constitution says. The question is were these peaceful protests or violent protests . You testified 50 of your officers were injured. Can you describe of those injuries . Yes, sir. Like i said in my Opening Statement 50 u. S. Park police rangered between 529in and june 1st. 11 of those injuries were blunt trauma related injuries to the head, upper body and lower buddy. One of those was sustained by a sergeant for the United States park Police Wearing this helmet you see on the table. And you can see the damage that occurred to the left side of the helmet. That officer is still hospitalized. To this day hes never returned to work. On may 30th there were 37 injuries up at the white house. 20 of those were for the u. S. Park police, and those injuries were blunt trauma related injuries to the head, upper body and lower buddy. The most significant of which was an officer from the United States parks police on the line from the north end of Lafayette Park and he say struck by protesters. On may 31st we had 16 patient encounters of u. S. Park police personnel. 16 were injuries to the head, upper baudo or lower body. And june 1st we only had one injury. The protocol follows three warpings a warnings and the what kind of device used to do that. There were three warnings given and given using a longrange acoustic device. Its called an lrad and that was the device used. Did attorney general barr order the park police to clear the square . No, sir, he did not. Did white house chief of staff mark meadows order park police to clear the square . No. Did anyone at the white house order the park police to clear the square . No, sir. Did secretary bernhardt order the park police to clear the square. No, he did not. I Wish Congress would work on renewing hope in america, on over coming s this pandemic and rebuilding our future rather than continuing to drag issues like this through the mud when its clear that my colleagues across the aisle do not want to work for a solution. A very thoughtful bipartisan bill was put out on Police Reform by senator scott and it was essentially laughed at. With that i yield back. Let me now turn to vice chair of the committee for any questions you might have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for being here, mr. Moynihan. Id like to talk about the missing park Police Radio Recordings from june 1st. Did park police communicate over radio with other agencies regarding the coordination of june 1st that were talking about today . In terms of the radio transmissions made by the United States park pleat there were two other members. We had facetoface contact with partners on june 1st. Just to be clear the Radio Communication was just between park police and other other contacts with agencies were done in person . Yes, maam. Okay, is it standard procedure for park police to record radio transmissions in between each other like this . Yes, so standard procedure is to have a record of any rid adi transmission. And could you explain to us why they should be recorded . Yes, maam, if you go back to september 2018 the United States park police were using an analog radio system at the time. We were preparing to transition in a Digital Radio format. In september 2018 we experiencealexperienchad a clinical our administrative channel we utilize for large potential events such as the one on june 1st was not configured to record at the time. So it was not configured to record at the time. And im sorry, why is that . So, again, when we transition to our Digital Radio system the radio technicians only setup our main dispatch channel to record. It was an error. They did not setup our administrative channel to record. Okay, so that was an error you say . Yes, it was. Okay. Were there any notes or logs of those transmissions because there was an error in having those communications recorded . Yes. So for any special event, a large demonstration like the one on june 1st we establish a written record or a written log of transmissions that are utilized within the command bus to send out situational reports or updates via email, so that was done in this case. And so can you provide any notes or logs of those transmissions to committee, please. I will work with the office of congressional and legislative affairs for any questions you have. Does it only happen when you know the radio recording is not working . As i mentioned earlier for large special events and the days leading up to june 1st we established a redupd want process of having a written log. Okay, so is it standard procedure to record radio transmissions but theres no recording of radio traffic for parse police on june 1st. I imagine having that recording would answer many of the questions we and the public have at this moment. Yes, maam, and i agree. Every record should have a complete record. In this incidence we have a written record. And so you will provide the written record to your committee at your earliest convenience . Yes, maam. Thank you, thank you. Regarding your radio reporting technology youre saying it wasnt actually broken it was an error on the part of it was an error in making sure that the recordings actually recorded. So it wasnt setup that way. It wasnt really broken, is that right . Thats right. And we did not attempt the area and as soon as we were alerted to the fact it was not configured to record and we have collected that error. Im sorry, whose false was the rare. You go back to 2018 the radio te te technition and this is since we have a record and written log. So right now you have the radio and recordings are working. Is that what youre telling me. And inwhere a repeat of june 1st you have the recordings you could send over to us. Yes, our administrative channel is configured to roord, yes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You mentioned the longrange acoustic device that was yew used. What is the range of that device when the comes to warning the crowd. Its sir, oip some time since i read the asand i would estimate that had it setup which we were in the Center Center of the north and Northwest Center of the park. And i would say we were within 45 meters of the protesters. So they were in hachg of hearing. Courses of actions did the park police consider when discussing that issue . So when implementing our plan to clear the north side of Lafayette Park and east street we moved the courthouse from east to west and theyre path of exit was either north on 16th street or iindiana dplu or spoen west to 17 and 8th or connecticut and 8th. That is the direction . Correct. Okay, you mentioned earlier the various acts of violence, the projectiles that were being thrown and the injuries that were sustained. There was everything from frozen Water Bottles to bricks in a weekend of violent protests. You mentioned 51 injured and we know at the arsons where there were calls by Police Officer regarding violence against them. There were also cashes. Has there been any specific groups or group involved in organizing all this . Yes, the United States park police has coordinated with all our partners to investigate some of the violence we saw, the assaults on officers. Weve been successful in obtaining a number of arrest warrants against individuals either involved in the assault of Police Officers or damage to park resources. In terms of a nexus to larger groups, thats ano ongoing effort. When do you think that might be determined . I dont know if i can say as i sit here today. These are Ongoing Investigation and as we gather more information and additional arrests are made all the intel gathered from the arrest contributes to a larger effort. It just appears in other places around the country there are specific grouped behind it. Recently, theres a video circulated that shows jerry nadler, of course chairman of the judiciary, stating that mean of these protests were in essence a myth as far as the violence in the protest. Would you agree with that . No, sir, i would agree. Bis on the level of violence and sustained violence we saw beginning may 29th through june 1st this was one of the most violent protests ive been involved. What would be another that would take up your memory . We occupied d. C. Years ago and the world bank demonstrations. Its amazing to me we as r as wersenman mentioned this is nothing more than political theater to come here and pretend theyre Peaceful Protesters where the evidence is abundance anything from arson to vandalism to 51 injured officers. The reason is did not cape stain that momentum in washington, d. C. Is because the parks police and others got involved to put a stop to it, and so i want to thank you for your service in that regard and maintaining the safety of washington, d. C. And beyond. I to have a letter that i would ask mu ask unanimous consent to submit into the record. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, acting chief moynihan for being here. The question that i have are mr. Moynihan has to do with the reasons for clearing the protesters from Lafayette Square. I think you mentioned the reason was that the area was needed to be cleared to put up fencing, seal off Lafayette Park and create a newel perimeter. When was that decision made and was there any specific time when this fencing was supposed to go up . Yes, sir. So the decision to pursue other options based on the increase level of violence we saw beginning on may 29th was initially discussed saturday evening into sunday morning. Based on a number of factors we knew that we were likely to have an monday a late report. Time forous perm or also a labor rival time for the fencing. The fencing did alive on monday in the Late Afternoon. At 3 00 p. M. On monday the site manager arrived. At 3 30 p. M. The employees arrived. The fencing arrives at 5 15 p. M. , and then we staged on 17th street by the United States secret service as as i earliered at 6 33 p. M. We gave the first of three warnings. T at 6 55 the secret service escorted the truckwise the fencing inside the white house area and staged them on the west side of Lafayette Park at jackson place. And they began to install the fence at 7 30 p. M. , and the fencing build out was completed at 12 50 a. M. Let me understand. You said in this operation about the fencing that it happened in the early evening was inevitable given that you needed both the resource and the fencing that would do this. Is there discussion it would be better to start this process after the curfew or at night to start it instead of in the evening when the crude would be at its peak. But the standard for timing setting up new securing and we were opt ralting on logisticical strength in terms of having resources to safely implement our plan and having the fencing in place. In terms of the curfew that was not something that factored into our decision making. And if aiolook at the level of violence we were subjected to over the three previous operational periods it increased throughout the day, and then as nightfall came upon us it increased from that point on. If the previous night buzz any indication which was the first night with where we had the curfew waiting until curfew did not appear rightly that the noises and the crowd would peacefully disperse. So let me just understand this. In his statement major demarco also mentioned that shortly after Lafayette Square 6 20 a. M. After conferring with the park police the inaudible warnings began. Shortly after the clear finishing in a fast might rushed banner about 30 minutes later. The president was having his photo opp at about 7 45 p. M. Now, need to under. The vez buzz for a photo opor thats an amazing coincidence. Dont you think, mr. Moynihan . No, i dont think its a coincidence. Our operation was solely centered around the clearing of eighth street and Lafayette Park to deescalate the sustained level of violence we saw over the previous days and june 1st. In order to deescalate that a common practice it to install physical barriers between Law Enforcement and protests. If you fast forward to june 2nd we saw a dramatic decrease in violent behavior at Lafayette Park an june 2nd. Thank you, im going to yield back but it just starts be as an amazi amazingyou. Can you confirm that testimony . If not, what time did the material arise in and the fence start being erected . Yes, sir. Mr. Demarco is mistaken. The fencing, as i said, the site manager arrived at 3 00, employees at 3 30, the first truck with the fencing arrived at 5 15. They staged on 17th street. They were escorted into the white house complex, if you will, at 6 55. That was after we cleared the north end of Lafayette Park and h street, and at 7 30, they began to build the fence. All right. So the testimony of the next witness is not accurate as it relates to the fence. Since the time the fence was put up, how many officers have been injured . After the phonesing was built out, we have zero injuries. So why does Lafayette Park remain closed . The fencing was taken down shortly after, i think it was june 10th. We saw sort of a second phase of violence in d. C. Directed at statues, and other federal property. Lafayette was closed down through the 31st of this month in an effort to restore and repair some of the damage that was done in Lafayette Park. It seems clear to me that fencing is effective in deterring vandals, would you agree with that . In this case, just based on the geography, it was a meaningful and deliberate move and a change in tactics on our part to in furtherance of deescalation, so yes, it did work. Youve zero injuries since then. I think the evidence speaks for itself. Is the fence currently around st. Johns church . Theres a portion, yes. Has will beo there been any further damage done to the church since the fence . No the to my knowledge. Who requested this fence to be erected . So the concept or the idea of utilizing antiscale fencing was a conversation we had between the u. S. Park police and our counterparts with the United States secret service. Again, that discussion began saturday evening into sunday morning. According to your testimony, the fence was a key tactic that served to greatly reduce the violent behavior of bad actors, and from your testimony here this morning, it was effective in accomplishing that strategic mission. The park police has an obligation to protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators while at the same time maintaining law and order. We get that. And weve got to protect our Law Enforcement officers. So how does the erection of the fence in this case and in other cases help accomplish these obligations . Yes, sir, a good question. Its a physical barrier, and what we saw on the days preceding it, the bar yes, sir we had between protesters and Law Enforcement in the park were two rows of bike rack, which is maybe four feet hide. We had numerous successful attempts of protesters jumping across. An antiscale fence is a was a logical move and a change in tactic to prevent those types of behaviors. It did not prevent projectiles from continuing to be thrown in the days subsequent, but provided a suitable barrier between Law Enforcement and those back actors showing violence. My final question here. Who specifically were the personnel involved in the actual installation of the fence . With they National Guardsmen part of the detail . Who was it . No, the Fencing Company itself installed the fence. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize mr. Gallegos. Who told the men to advance . Im sorry, your second question . Who told the men to. The Incident Commander. Were you on site . Yes, i was. Did you have any at the conversations with attorney general barr on site . I did not. You did not interact with him when he came out of the white house . I saw him in the park, but did not have interaction. 7 00 p. M. , you could actually make probably a staismt saying now this is an illegal operation, you niece to disperse, but you decided to coincidentally 40 minutes earlier because you think somehow that deescalates. We were not operating on a timetable. Why didnt you . It makes more logical sense to wait until 7 00 p. M. I would respectfully disagree, i say that embassy are based on our experience the night before. The 7 00 p. M. Consider few. But that day you testified one injury. What time was that injury . The injury was during the clearing operation of h street. That whole day was peaceful testimony until the clearing, but then there decided to be violence, so you initiated something . We saw violence throughout the im not asking that. On june 1st. When i was in the Marines Corps and i had to clear these cities. , i could to react to what happened that city. The next day, i went out and patrol like a professional. On june 1st, by your testimony you had largely Peaceful Protesters up to the type you tried to forcibly moved them. Your decision should have been based on what was on the ground and on that day. All of our decisions were based on the level of assessment of violence directed toward Law Enforcement . Not on that day. Thats very unprofessional if you are telling me that you made decisions of june 1st what to do june 1st, and you decided that day required a level of escalation, because later on one person would get injured once you starts moving through the crowd. My testimony to you today is our operation on june 1st was solely based on an effort to deescalate the violence and based on an effort to provide for the safety of those no, no, you wanted to deescalate by putting up the fence, which i think is an important move, but deescalating the violence does not mean sending men swinging their batons and uses that pepper spray or cs gas, 40 minutes prior to a curfews. It doesnt make logical sense. I actually have been trained in dizzy sclal and riot control also. The one thing you try to do is find the moments to actually deescalate. So 7 00 p. M. When the curfew is about to hit, when youre also going to have some backing at least from the washington Police Department would have been the most logical standpoint. Instead, we have this weird scenario that youre telling me there was so much violence that day, that nobody was injured, by the way, until you guys advanced and you had to make the decision then. It makes no sense. If i had acted this way when i was in the marine corps, i probably would have been busted down a couple routes. Also, there were two Police Officers that assaulted australian tv news crew. Are they being held responsible . The incident on june 1st involving the australian media is being investigated by the office of professional responsibility for the United States park police. That investigation is under way at this time. Did you see the video yourself . I have seen the video, yes. Was the conduct professional that these Police Officers were engaging in . Its an Ongoing Investigation and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that officially. To be clear, your Police Officers on that day, they are all pasch Police Officers. People werent brought in from i. C. E. Or dhs, it was all park police . On june 1st we were operating under unified command with the United States secret service. Who were the people assaulting and pushing forward on the protesters . Were they all park police . No, the other agencies that assisted with the operation of the clearing of h street. You cleared protesters with people who have different standards, different procedures for clearing . You train your park police all along one standard, right, in terms of riot control . Did you know what standards and procedures those other elements were used to . Yes, they receive the same training that we do. They do . Yes, sir. Okay. Can you provide documentation for that . Yes, any requests you have i will facilitate and work with the office of congressional of legislative affairs. I yield back. Mr. Cox, you are recognized. Thank you so much, chairman, and thank you for being here today, chief. The hearing today isnt so much about whether or not the fence went up or people were painting in the park or peaceful protests. In fact it was peaceful protests. Its whether or not the park police and yourself have a duty and obligation and fealty to the constitution. Yes, sir. If you are giving an order to would you abide by that order . Im sorry, sir . Can you repeat the question . If you were give an order to temperature bear women or africanamericans from polling places you would, a bide by that . Im not sure i understand. If you were giving an order to have officers forcefully take away arms from a citizen would you i dont know the context in which youre asking the question. Its going to get down to the point, if you and your officers are asked to violate the very First Amendment of the constitution, which allows people to peacefully assemble, would you abide by that order . So on june 1st there were peaceful demonstrators on h street and there were bad actors on h street. When we gave the first of three warnings, those were warnings we were clearing this areas for safety reason and it was a temporary closures. Once that third warning was given, everyone on that end of the park is required to vacate that area. When we did the operation, we gave them avenues of exit well, i think were going to hear from the next witness, right, that what they were asked to do was contravene their oath to the constitution. What were being asked today, and what youre basically testifying to is there was no correlation at all between your orders to clear the square and with the president s photo op. Would you agree or tell me otherwise, did the park need to be cleared in order for the president to take hi photo opt . Our goal that day. No, no, did that park need to be cleared . Did that area need to be vaccinationated by any other citizens for the president to take hi photo in. We did not clear the park for a photo op. No, thats not the question. Did it need to be cleared . Youre not with the secret service, did that area need to be cleared in order for the president to take a photo in front of st. Johns square . Im not the person to answer that question. Would you think that the place needed to be cleared . It was just a convenient coinciden coincidence. It begs to reason the place would have to be cleared, and all of a sudden, like my colleague was saying, magically and coincidentally that area was cleared. You just happened to be doing that, because fencing absolutely had to go up right at 6 30, because you had been waiting, because contractors were making overtime. Our focus that day was to install the fencing. What youre absolute lid testifying in, and id like to make the statement there was absolutely no correlation, no direction, to clear the square for the president s photo op. There is 100 zero correlation between our operation and the president s visit to the church. Okay. So what would the president have done if there wasnt if the square hadnt been cleared . Would he have gone out there . I dont know if i can answer that question, respectively, sir. Well hear from the next witness about why he is coming forward, because he was asked to contravene hi oath to the constitution. Do your officers ever get any training when theyre puts in these situations when theyre asked to contravene their oath . When theyre given an order they cant abide by . I believe every action taken by the park police on union 1st no, are they ever given any training with regard to that situation, when theyre put in an untenable situation like that sthimplts i wouldnt characterize the situation as untenable. Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Boy, this is like living in groundhog day, an alternative universe. The other side is on a fishing expedition here, trying to get you to Say Something very different, chief. A real quick yes or no. As your officers worked to clear Lafayette Square, were they aware that the mob had attempted to burn down st. Johns church . Yes. So is that an exercise of the First Amendment, burning down a church . No, sir, its not. Hmm. Interesting. So, now in Lafayette Square, your officers were facing off against violent anarchists who had spent the better part of days there. Yes, thats true. Defacing a world war ii memorial, damaging the lincoln memorial, and tearing down monuments around the city and attempting to burn down and efface the historic st. Johns church meanwhile,s your toifrs attempted to push these anarchist away from the white house, their real target, they are pelted with Water Bottles, fireworks and called some of the most vile disgusting names to their faces. Yet your officers worked in a professional manner. Counter to the narrative being pushed by the media, Lafayette Square was cleared to allow a fence to be erected, to enhance security at the square. In the time sense the fence has been put up, how many officers have been injured . No injuries sustained by the United States park police since the fence was put up on june 1st. Once again, why did Lafayette Square remain closed . Currently its closed due to ongoing restoration efforts and damage assessments based on the damage to the statues and other areas within the park too include the comfort station that was burned down. So once again, First Amendment, does it allow you to decent crate, destroy and defame public property . No, sir, it does not. Hmm. Wow. But i deep hearing its a peaceful demonstration. Do you keep hearing that, too . Yes, sir. That is an alternative universe again. Is there currently a fence around st. Johns church, a church in which a fire was lit before the square was cleared . Yes, theres currently fencing around the front of the church. Who requested that fence to be erected . Metropolitan police. Has there been any further destruction or vandalism of the church . Not to my knowledge, sir. So according to your written testimony, the fence was a key factor, and the park police has the responsibility of maintaining law and order and keep our louveaw enforcement officers safe. How does the fence keep your obligations . Based on the previous days violence, it was clear to us the likelihood the situation would get worse on june 1st. We saw acts of violence on june 1st throughout the day, projectiles being thrown, angry protesters and rioters attempts to and in some cases jump over the double row of bike racks. On you assessment from those on the ground who witnessed the previous days violence, faced with the violence in front of them on that day is that the aggress from the crowd, the increased aggress that got even worse after 7 00 p. M. And the curfew, even though we were not abiding by a curfew was that to erect that fence was a logical next step for deescalation. I think everyone here at the at the can you describe the role of police during they protests and marches . Our goal for any demonstration is to provide to for the safety of those there to peacefully assemble, to problem the resources, maintain law and order, ensure that any lawful demonstration can continue uninterrupted, but also ensure the safety of our personnel. Were see anarchists, desecrati desecration, hiding behind people claiming to be in Peaceful Assembly. I yield back. Mr. Levin, you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I ask consent to bur a entitled park police head had been accused illegal searches and unreliable testimony. This is an argue about mr. Monahan. Mr. Monahan, i want to get your reaction to additional video from june 1st. They clips show the moments immediately before and then during the Law Enforcement surge around 6 30 p. M. , about a half hour before, please pay particular attention to whether the police are responding to any actual ifle threats from the crowd, the speed and aggress of the police surge and the weapons officers used on the protesters. Can the Committee Staff please play the clips . I believe theres one more. A park Police Officers strike as australian cameraman with a shield and grabs his camera. Another officer is seen flinging a back as they flee. Mr. Monahan, our time is limited, so i ask that you please answer they questions with a yes or no. Were the officers surging against the crowd and assaulting a news crew . Yes or no. The officers, were they surging into the crowd and assaulting a news crew . Again, as to the thats not yes or not. Respectfully, i dont think i can answer it with a yes or no. Its your content they one assaulting a news crew . The picture speaks a thousand words. And i think the video shows a moment in time. As to the second video, its an Ongoing Investigation. Ive heard you say that. Did the clips show any violence from the protesters before the officers surged on them . Simple yes or no. I dont think theres a simple yes or not. I think we saw the video, and can acknowledge there was no violence. The administration has contradicted itself on whether the allege ed violence was actually the reason for using force. A statement from attorney general barr said the evidence was cleared to remove the perimeter one block. Weve seen statements a Water Bottles and such were thrown, but did you see the officers shove protesters with their shields in that video . Again, a simple yes or no. I saw the video, and it showed the officers clearing h street. Were getting somewhere. Did you see officers attack a australian reporter, even as they tried to get away . Again, yes or no. Again, respectfully i wont comment on an Ongoing Investigation. It was on the video, and we heard from ms. Brace that it happened. Did you see officers throw flag bang or stinger ball grenades into the crowd . Yes. Our rules of engagement dictated on june 1st we would only use force if met with violent resistance. Did we see any of that violent resistance in those videos, mr. Monahan . Its a simp yes or no question. Not in the context of the video you showed. So are you willing to tell this committee and the American People that the force those ives used against the droid wcrowd w competentive and unjustified . It was in line with our policies and procedures. I heard new your introduction say that this was tremendous restraint used by your officers. I just find that heart ard to believe. Do you stand by that statement . Yes, sir, i do. Well, ill just remind my fellow colleagues of the title of that New York Times article from june 18th, and ask you to read it. With that, ill yield back. The clahair recognizes mr. Thank you for being here today where we finally get to have a dialogue with you about the events of june 1st. My first question relates to the first video clip that i think mr. Hoffman had played at the beginning of the hearing. Did you see any violence on the part of the protesters in that brief clip . So the video that was shown yes or no, the first clip. It captures a moment in time. It was a Peaceful Assembly that we saw per that clip. You mentioned that on june 1st there was actually only one officer who regretfully had to be treated because of some injury. Not 50, as you had stated previously, in over a several day period. Do you know the circumstances of that treatment . What led to those injuries or his treatment . Yes. So his injury was sustained during the clearing of the operation of h street. During that clearing operation, he was engaged in a violent interaction with a protester, and he was punched in the face. Fair enough, one officers. Do you know approximately the size of the group that had assembled . I would say several thousand. 1,000 . 50,000 . Less than 50,000. I would estimate 1 to 3,000. Good. Any guesstimate of what percent of those assembled were behaving in violent ways . No, i dont, but the only thing i can so you dont know. With respect to the use of tear gas, are you aware that tear gas is a chemical weapon banned in war . No, im not aware of that. Im glad were having this conversation. Weve all seen the chilling images of peaceful demonstrators being attacked and gassed by federal Law Enforcement officers, including those under your command. It should never again by used against demonstrator, but especially not during a pandemic. Thats why representatives have joined me in a bill that seeks to ban the use of this chemical agent, especially during a pandemic, against peaceful demonstrators. Mr. Monahan, do you believe in the First Amendment and the peaceful right to organize . Yes, i do. Do you believe that people are reasonably upset by deaths of black lives taken by Police Officers . Yes, sir. Do you believe that demonstrators are in their right to take to the streets after persist arent please brutality against communities of color . I believe that individuals have the right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate, yes. Then why were you on board with the eagerness to disperse the crowd, when it was maybe 30 minutes before the curfew was to take effect, a curfew people were quite well aware of by the time of this violent encounter in Lafayette Square . What was so urgent about things when we saw video that the protesters were in fact largely peaceful and one of the witnesses that has appeared before this committee, the head of the church that was referred to earlier, said that they were participating, and the members of that church were participating in peaceful actions, and that it included many gatherings of family members, including children, that were participating in their right to free speech. So to your first question, the United States park police did not use tear gas on june 1st. To your second question, were there people there peacefully demonstrating . Yes, but there were a number of bad actors. Once three warnings were given, everyone needed to vaccinationate. Were there other chemical agents used . Yes, we utilized pepper balls, smoke canister which do not have an irritant in them and also stinger balls. Thank you, i think my time has run out. I yield back. Ms. Vazquez. Mr. Monahan, did you have any communication from President Trump, Vice President pence, attorney general barr or secretary esper encouraging not to testify on june 29th. Nom. Have you ever had conversations with a subordinate encouraging them not to cooperate with this committees investigation . No. Mr. Monahan, the uspp has a history of engaging in abuse of powers during peaceful process. A 2015 court order required a settlement to provide three audible warnings, at least two minutes apart to disperse drouds and identify avenues for protesters to scatter. Did you comply with that, to identify through audible avenues for protesters to scatter . Yes, maam, as we discussed earlier, there were three warnings given, in terms of an avenue to leave the area the way the crowd was moved they could either go north on 16th street or continue west on h street to either connecticut avenue or 17th street. So that doesnt match the testimony of previous witnesses nor the testimony that will be provided by major alan demarco regarding audible warnings. And we just saw the video that was played, and to say otherwise is just really is outrageous. I was watching it, i couldnt hear anything the the people there are we saying, what were they saying . What did they mean . So, mr. Monahan, you also watch the video of the female reporter ms. Brace, so my question to you is any action by her and she was standing there werent being attacked and shot at with rubber bullets . I take seriously any allegation of misuse of force by any of our members. We have policies and procedures that direct how those things are handled. In this instance theres a Current Internal Affairs investigation that is under way. If at the end of that investigation there is so im asking you i want to reclaim my time you watch it, was there any actions committed by ms. Brace that required the type of action and attack by the police . Again, i will not comment on an Ongoing Investigation. I will commit to holding our officers accountable for any actions that are deemed a violation of force policy. That investigation is still under way. Mr. Monahan, are you aware that covid19 affects the respiratory system . Yes, maam. So why would you use any type of chemical agent in the midst of a pandemic . Again, as i stated earlier, our rules of engagement on june 1st is that we would not use any force unless we were met with violent resistance from the my question to you is why, knowing that this country is dealing with a pandemic and basically one of the areas most impacted by covid19 is the respiratory system, knowing that, why do you use such agents, such chemical agents against Peaceful Protesters . The use of force we utilized was in response to the violent behavior exhibited by a number of bad actor, in the midst of others there to peacefully assemble. As i mentioned before, sir, witnesses who came before this committee, mayor adam demarco they are all testifies that those were Peaceful Protesters. That was covered amply by the media. The nation was watching while they saw how the Police Attacked Peaceful Protesters. So immediately following the incident, the Arlington County board chair said that she was appalled that their Cooperation Agreement with the Trump Administration has been abused to endanger their and others safety for a photo op. A media reports indicate that the u. S. Pp directly misled the Arlington County police about the nature of the operation. How would you respond to the comments made by the board chair and the allegations that the uspp misled the Arlington County police about the nature of the operation. The United States park police enjoying a very long and storied history with the Arlington County Police Department, in terms of mutual aid over the last numerous years. In terms of their assistance as to our operation on june 1st, that was a request made through mutual aid, in terms of sir, why do you think excuse me. Why do you think your time has expired. Is saying you misled them. Why do you think implying that you lied to them . Mr. Chairman, has the time expired . Yes. I yield back. The gentle lady yields. I come from a more rural part of the world where we havent had these types of violent interaction. In fact all of our george floyd demonstrations and protests having peaceful have been joined in with by the local Police Forces, so this is something new for me to jump into the world of these things. I want to see if we can agree on some things. I suspect we will. You have mentioned before that you said you believe every incident should have a complete record, right . Yes. And the idea is to not only doed job, but to improve the way you do the job, do make sure regrettable incidents are not repeated, right . Yes, thats a fair statement. To do that, what we are looking for is accountability. I think you used the word before we want accountable on the Police Forces, including the park police, right . Yes, i would agree. And to do that, it is fitting and proper for us to engage in these exercises where we flesh out the facts of these incidences. Is that fair . Yes. So to anybody who says to flesh out the facts of violent confrontation between police and protesters is some sort of political sh political charade, some kind of a show, thats not necessarily true. Were fleshing out the facts to find accountability, and thats a good thing, isnt it, chief . In terms of fleshing out for accountable, yes, i would agree. Again t. I thank you for being here. One of the things i wanted to clear up is congressman lowenthal asked if it was a coincident between the timing of the square, and you said it was not a coincidence, and i dont think thats what you meant. I want to give you a chance to clear that up. Our decision and the timing of implementing our plan to clear the north side of Lafayette Park and h street was irrespective of any decision of the white house or the president to visit the park or the church. Thats what i thought your position was. It was a complete coincidence, according to your testimony. Yes, sir. Okay. I also wanted to talk about the timing a bit. What time was the curfew for . 7 00 p. M. . Yes, sir, it was a 7 00 p. M. Curfew. And what did the curfew call for, chief . No members of the public could be out after 7 00 p. M. And how was that communicated to the public . I believe it was an order from the Mayors Office in d. C. Was that communicated clearly and cogently so that people i cant speak to what every member of the public understood our were aware of. Can the park police help to enforce that curfew . No, we did not play a role in enforcing the 7 00 p. M. Curfew. You mentioned another injury on june 1st, and obviously that was regrettable, a facial laceration when an officer was punched in the face. You said that was in the clearing of h street. Is that correct . Yet h street forms the Northern Boundary . Yes, sir. What time did it happen . I dont know the exact lime, but between 6 30 and 6 50 p. M. , which was the time of the clearing of h street. Is it fair to say the injury occurred after the socalled surge to clear the as you described it, it was during the surge to clear h street. So that injury happened during the surge . It did. Our officers were subjected to a number of projectiles. They did not sustain any injuries. The only injury on june 1st was that instance. Thank you, chief for answering my questions. I used back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cartwright mis is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You said in your written testimony, your agency has dealt with hundreds of demonstrations at special events. Is that correct . Yes, maam, every year we facilitate thank you, sir. I only have five minutes. You also testified there were violent protests between may 29th and june 1st. Yes, maam. You just told mr. Cartwright on june 1st when injury to the officer occurred during the clearing of h street. Yes. Mr. Chairman i would like for unanimous consent to enter the u. S. Park police use of force general order 3615 updated november 1, 2019. Thank you. I discussed this policy at the previous hearing. Mr. Monahan, are you familiar with this policy . Yes, maam, i am. The policy governses the conditions under which the park polices use of force is appropriate. Im going to ask about some of those parts of the policy. One says an officer is expected to employ only the minimum level of reasonable force necessary to control a situation. We have heard testimony and seen Video Evidence of the use of chemical irritants and officers chasing protesters to beat them with batons. Mr. Monahan, do you believe that represented the minimum level to cross the situation on june 1st . Yes. Again, i will reiterate you believe you complied with the rules that those that couldics were the minimal level of force to control that situation. Yes, we would only utilize force if met with violent resistance. Okay. One a level of force is no longer required, it must be decreased or discontinued. Now did you concluded at any point on the even of june 1st after the po usual into the protesters began that the level of force was no longer required to clear the square . Yes, if you watch what time was that that you decided that the level of force was no longer required . Im not sure i understand your question, maam. At some point did you conclude that the level of force being used was no longer required to clear the square . Thats what your rule require. And enguess it requires a bit of explanation. Its a very fluid situation when were clearing h street. Throughout that operation there was an instance where an officer was wrestled to the ground by an angry and violent protester. He attempted to pull his handgun. Excuse me, sir, you are not answering my question, did you at any time of the clearing of the square determine that a desclal was appropriate, yes or no . And im trying to give you a good example. Okay. Youre not. Im going to move on. Finally the policy says the goal of deescalation tactics is to gain the voluntary compliance of a subject when appropriate and consistent with person personal safety to reduce or eliminate the use of force. Do you believe the park polices sudden surge into the entire protest crowd was a genuine effort to get the protesters to voluntarily comply, and most importantly to reduce or eliminate the necessity to use force . Yes, i do. Okay. Now i want to ask you one more question since you have shown familiarity with these policies. Is there a section in the policies that allow the police to use force based on events of previous days demonstrations . I ask you this question, because you have testified throughout in hearing today, in the previous days before june 1st, there were a number of officers injured and there was a lot of violence used. But on june 1st and so youre using that as your rationale for using violence from the beginning on june 1st based on what happened in days before. Can you point me to a section of the policy that allows preemptive use of force based on previous demonstrations . Maam, my testimony to you today is that the use of forts we utilized on june 1st was in direct correlation to the level of violence we were subjected to on june 1st. In reference to anything that occurred on may 29th, 30th or 31st was for context. Okay. So youre saying that what were seeing the park police did on june 1st, the surge into the crowd, youre saying its your position that that was directly related to the force being used by the protesters on that day immediately before the surge . Mr. Chairman, theres a pattern going on. Im trying to, sir. Thank you. Im sorry . Your time is up. Let me recognize thank you, mr. Chairman. I recognize mr. Brown for five minutes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chief monahan, thank you for it i have today. Let me start by saying. I do appreciate the response you have to maintain Public Safety. I do understand the level of force and engagement that you need to take when youre dealing with unlawfulness, whether its arson, looting or other violence, but i think many on this committee are else concerned about how we engage Peaceful Protesters. There seems to be a blurring of the lines between Peaceful Protesters and unlawfuls in that perhaps you and your officers did not req need. Let me ask you this question. The Washington Post reported at 6 00 p. M. On june 1st, attorney general barr could be seen in cnns live shot of the area at Lafayette Park, and at one point barr was speaking to a man who looked like a park police official. The official could be seen dropping his head in what looks like exaggerated resignation, and with barr even patted him on the back as though consoling him. I want to ask the committee to show that video. After they pull up the video, i want you to focus on the man who aprompts attorney general barr and appears to be a Law Enforcement official. Can we show that video, please . With his security and aides standing right there behind the police lines. I wonder if hes going to walk back to the white house and see be there when the president makes his statement. Thats going to be in a few moments. Right now hes very close to where the action is right across the street from the white house on pennsylvania avenue. A very, very sensitive moment unfolding right now. I have no idea why bill barr decided to go there. Clearly he may have just wanting to see the players, it looks like hes walking back now, away from the police lines. Chief monahan, can you identify that Law Enforcement official in the video . Captain russell finman. Was that captain the Incident Commander . No, he was not. Have you spoken with the captain who spoke with attorney general barr since june 1st . Yes, i have. Was that part of a sort of an afteraction review, or sort of to learn about events on that day . Yes, sir. Can you say the captains name against, please. First name is russell. Last name is finnelly. Did captain finnelly receive any instructions from attorney general barr . No, he did not. If you look at the video, he proactively walks over to the group. You did see him with his hand pointing what was the nature of the conversation he had with attorney general barr . What does attorney general barr ask him to do . Yes, thats what im trying to explain. You can see him gesture to his left and to his right. His point in addressing the group was that they were very close to the north end of Lafayette Park. They were very close to an area where we saw and had our officers subjected to projectiles being thrown to them earlier in the day and based on the captains assessment, this were way too long in the line and in a position of danger. Do you have any idea why captain finnelly dropped his head in response to a member of attorney general barrs detail patted him on the back . Yes, i do. His purpose in addressing them was to ask hthem to move away t a safer location. At the end of that exchange with the attorney generals protective detail, they moved south away from the demonstration area. And what information did attorney general barr convey to the captain . I think it was the opposite. It was captain finnelly conveying details about the chief monahan, your officer responded to something that attorney general barr said. What did attorney general barr said to your officer on the ground . Again, sir, it was our captain addressing the attorney general and the group and his detail, requesting that they move away from the area towards a position of safety, as opposed to being up there on the line. What was barrs response . What was attorney general barrs response . I think can you see the response. They heeded his warning. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Let me turn to ms. Dingell. You are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for convening this hearing to answer some of the Unanswered Questions from last months hearing on the june 1st Lafayette Square protest. As my fellow Committee Members have stated, this sort of action on being forcibly attacked by armed police, without provocation, both violates or fundamental principles, and calls for us to closely examine how the events in question could have occurred. Im very grateful, we have an administration witness here so that we can try to get some answers to some of these questions. Mr. Monahan, i think you would agree that managing large crowds like protests is a Law Enforcement challenge that requires specific knowledge and skills. If officers on duty are not properly trained, what are the potential consequences for the protesters or the officers themselves . So, maam, the United States park Police Officers are properly trained our focus that day was centered around the protection of life, maintain order and ensure the safety of our officers. That was the focus for that day, and any demonstration we facilitate. Am i correct, though you just said that all of your officers were trained. If you dont have trained officers, is it not the case that situations that quickly escalate and become violent . Based on the scenario that you just mentioned, maam, i would agree. So in cases where theres sing lairens conditionses of violence, would the training advise attacking the entire crowd, or would it advise them on isolate and remove the individuals perpetrating the violence . Ill give you an example. I have done 20 peaceful marches, walks, protests at home, and in a number of them, people have shown up with bricks and other things, yet theres not been one episode of violence because, is it not true that you should try to isolate and remove those that are trying to perpetrate the property . Uh, yes. In our im not ask you trick questions. Our actions today we would not use force unless met with violent resistance from the crowd. Those bad actors subjected violent behavior against law op period on june 1st. So let me ask you about the other Law Enforcement units that were there in Lafayette Square that day. Do you know if there were any officers from any other Agency Present that were not trained in civil disturbance . So the agencies that we partners with that day that were involved in the clearing operation on h street were all trained in civil disturbance. In addressing so every officer to your knowledge that was present was trained that day . Yes, maam, to my knowledge, yes. So you commanded the force at spear of the tip that day and the arlington Police Department and the d. C. National guard were there specifically to help the park place so your presence was central. And you do know that everybody there was trained to deal with high pressure, high visibility, high consequences to these events . Yes, maam, the park place and the uniformed command and the Partner Agencies that assisted with that operation are all trained in civil disturbance and our duty where we have sustained violence being directed at Law Enforcement is for the safety of the officer and for those that are there to peacefully demonstrate. So let me ask you a question. How do you know that everybody there i think it is very important in having been places where people have tried to cause trouble and how do you know it is true, how do you know that everybody youre working with has been trained in peaceful in dealing with these kind of situations . So, the agencies, again, that were part of the clearing operation on h street, the Partner Agencies that we dealt with participate in the same training that we do. And you make sure of that ahead of time . Yes, maam. In terms of these are regional partners that we collaborate with on a yearly basis for hundreds of demonstrations, larger demonstrations such as the one that we saw on june 1st, larger demonstrations such as the inauguration, things like that. Thank you, mr. Monahan. Gentle lady yields back and let me recognize mr. Gray for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, would you mind going to a majority witness and then coming back, please. Excuse me. A majority member. Let me recognize mr. Soto, five minutes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Acting chief monahan im sure you understand were not here because you erected and fence and no one here is disputing the need for an appropriate response to the protests when they got violent on may 29th. And to the extent that your officers were injured, were all very sorry about that. Youre here because it appears that the president of the United States cleared Peaceful Protesters to have a photo op. To create a false appearance that he had protests under control and to intimidate americans from exercising their First Amendment rights. And as a result, there were numerous protesters who were there peacefully and were grievously injured as a result of the clearing. Do you think it is appropriate to forcefully clear protesters to pave the way for a photo op for President Trump . No, sir, and that is not our objective on june 1st. Our focus on june 1st was senered around the safety of the demonstrators and to maintain law and order to ensure the safety of our officers an we accomplished that goal. What are the usual reasons you are ordered to remove americans from Lafayette Square . In other instances in your career . So in this particular instance im asking about in the past. So there are, from a historical basis there are demonstrations on south side of the white house sidewalk and at times based on what the group is and what theyre there for, there are arrests that are made. It is more of an organized affair if you will. But it is markedly different from what we saw on june 1st. What we saw on june 1st was a need to clear that area to create a safe space for the Fencing Company to install the fence. The whole concept of installing that fence was based on an effort to deescalate the violence rising from may 29th through june 1st and throughout the operational period on june 1st. That was our goal. Those were the objectives on june 1st. Acting chief monahan, if youre given a legal order by a superior, you have a duty to refuse that order, is that correct . Can you repeat the question. If i was given an illegal order . Yes. If you have been given an illegal order by a superior, you have a duty to refuse that order, is that correct. Thats accurate, yes. So if you were given an order to clear Lafayette Square for a Campaign Purposes for the president of the United States, would that be an illegal order . That is not my testimony today, sir. Our operation and our objective on june 1st was to clear that area, to establish the antiscale fencing and in an effort to de escalate the on the rise since may 29th. I understand and to maintain law and order and provide for the safety of our officers. I understand what your intent and interpretation was acting chief monahan. Im asking more in theory since many of us have disagreements on what happened that day. Would it be illegal for you all to clear Lafayette Square for Campaign Purposes for a president of the United States . And sir, respectfully, im not here to engage in theoretical accounting of what happened and on june 1st as i described, our focus was to clear Lafayette Square and install that antiscale fencing for the safety of nose that were there to peacefully assemble, to maintain law and order, and to provide for the safety of our officers. Thank you, chief. I agree we need to maintain law and order and that is why it is important to refuse a order ifner of a illegal nature. With that i yield back. Here we go. The chair now recognizes mr. Grace for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to start out by saying, number one, i believe that there are racial injustices and inequities that we absolutely need to address as a United States congress. I do believe in some cases those are systemic. I also want to commend on the next pam major demarco for him stepping up and expressing concern about what he viewed as something that was inappropriate. And lastly, and in this regard, i want to say that some of the reports, the reports of folks being detained and questioned without any charges, not by you but by some of the protesters out west and Law Enforcement out west, i do support the investigation of those and i want to be clear that i dont believe that this provides, that protests provide an opportunity to infringe on peoples constitutional rights. That being said, chief, i believe i heard you earlier, ive been hearing bits and pieces of this hearing, i believe i heard you earlier say that park police have participated in hundreds of demonstrations across the Washington Area and other areas, is that correct . Yes, sir. On an annual basis. So fair to say you and your officers are more practiced in dealing with protesters that most Police Forces around the United States . Yes, sir, i would like to think so, yes. And probably get more training in that regard as well. I can only speak to the level of training that we get. But yes. So next question is of the hundreds of protests that you and your officers have participated in, how many of those have included the violence that your officers saw in the preceding days to what were discussing today . Meaning the injury of the officers, the fires, the damage to public property and things along those lines. Those happen from time to time. In my experience, theyre the exception not the rule. And so is it fair to say, and dont let me put words in your mouth, this is an extraordinary protest in report to the damage and the regard to injury to your officers, i believe i read somewhere over 50 officers were injured. Yes, that is accurate. So mr. Chairman, i think that we first of all need to be very clear that there is nothing normal about this. This is an absolutely extraordinary effort and you have folks experienced and trained to deal with this. Mr. Chairman, i believe it was last week we had the week before we had the Great Outdoors act under the jurisdiction of this committee, though the bill didnt come to the committee, where we appropriated mandatory spending billions of dollars to main feign fences an signs and toilets and other things on federal lands that comprise 28 of the United States of america. We did this as mandatory spending billions of dollars. It goes on in perpetuity. No end. 200 years from now were still spending it under the law that was passed. This is the second hearing were having an an incident at Lafayette Square. There is a Global Pandemic and we have record unemployment and a record recession, were seeing the virus take off everywhere and were wasting, weere wastig time on this. And i absolutely believe we need to protect the constitutional right of our citizens and this is the ridiculous in the way the chief is being treated is ridiculous. Think about it for just a minute. Your line of questioning is that the president was trying to advance a Campaign Initiative, yet what youre doing is youre trying to advance a Campaign Initiative using official resources right here, the hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting watching what is happening here. Chief, everybody is showing clips thatheyre narrative. There were fires and dozens of your officers injured as a result of this protest. I think it is absolutely disgusting that folks are trying to spin this narrative. Now i understand the next panel, major demarco is talking about what his perspective as i understand there was a meeting on saturday that determined the need for a fence. Was the major involved in those meetings that talked about the justification in the park fence. No, sir, he was not. And i comment him for viewing what he thought was important and it is important to note that he was not aware of all of the information that was out there. Chief, i have a lot of other questions but there is 20 seconds left, very quickly, are there any other things that you would like to share with the committee or the public and i know you were cut off repeatedly in questions so ill give you the last few seconds here. Yeah, again, i would go back to my original point that our objective on june 1st was to provide for Public Safety. Our objective on june 1st was to maintain law and order and ensure any lawful demonstrations could continue uninterrupted and provide for the safety of our officers and i think we accomplished that goal. And thank you. And i want to ask if the chief could provide the committee with information indicating whether those protesters closer to the l rad system announcing the distribution of protesters, if they seemed to leave more so or disproportionately to those further away, meaning folks were responding to the announcements or not. Yield back, thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Yes, there is a severe pandemic going on and your lecture notwithstanding that, lecture would be very appropriate with your president. So you could understand there is a cruel and vast pandemic going on in this country. With that, let me recognize mr. Bland. Yeah, thank you, thank you chairman grijalva. The First Amendment rights of the peace demonstrators at Lafayette Square and for some even thinking that this was done so the president would get a chance to go and stand in front of church and hold a bible and actually never went into there and say a prayer. I yield my time to mr. Gallego. Thank you, mr. Chair and thank you representative sublan. Who were the other Police Officers in the departments that were there be sides the National Park service . The agencies that were assisting us in clearing of h street . Yes. Park police, u. S. Secret service, arlington Police Department, um, and that is it. We have federal protective service was inside of the park. And i want to run something, a couple of timelines so i could get them straight. At 6 10 that meeting happened with whatever captain that was and barr. At what time does the incident commender give the order to start pushing on the protesters . So the first warning that was given to the protesters . Yeah. That the area was being closed to install the fence . Was given at 6 23 p. M. 6 23 p. M. And then they started moving on the protesters at one time . Our operation began around 6 30. I have 6 35. Ill give you the five minutes. As 6 43, as your pushing, i want to read you what the president is saying as 6 43. Im taking swift action to protect our great capitol washington, d. C. What happened was a total disgrace. As wee speak im dispatching thousands of soldiers and Law Enforcement to stop the violating and looting and destruction of property, the president is bragging about ordering Law Enforcement take on protests in d. C. Yet youre arguing that the police the park police solely made this decision about when to push based on the best scenario and situation for putting up the fencing, is that correct . No, sir, im not arguing with. Im telling you factually what happened. At 6 42 this happening and co incidentally there is no radio recording of that day. So there is this time line that makes sense if you put it together, if i was prosecuting somebody, i would have it right right now. 6 10 first meeting, 6 23 first warning and 6 35 push on the protesters, 6 43, president gives his rahrah speech, no radio comes, we cant find anything and you claim that you were meeting violent resistance. But yet there is no violent resistance. You claim and i think youre accurate about this, that the only violence met that day was in after the initial push. There was no officer injured prior to your order, is that correct . So i would not equate violence resistance with injured force members. We were subjected to projectiles throughout the day on june 1st wand met with violent resistanceond clearing operation of north end of Lafayette Square. You through pepper balls and you were taunting people. And our rules of engagement were only to use force if met with violent resistance. So you claim there was violent resistance prior to the clearing of the starting at 6 35. Yes. And i believe i gave you numerous examples. Individuals that jumped over the police line several times that day. There were projectiles thrown at officers throughout the day. So this is all one big coincidence, that at that point, that is when the violence has finally swelled that you had to do it at this exact point which happens to be seven minutes before the president started his speech. You couldnt wait until 7 00 p. M. To do it when there is people starting to retreat because of the curfew, at that exact same moment which we have no radio coms, that all happened in the span of 30 minutes and it all happened exactly how youre reporting it. And we have a written report of radio coms that day but our decision to clear h street was based on the on the ground assessment of the violence subjected to Law Enforcement that day. That is a fact. Your assessment is totally off. Last question, did the u. S. Park police coordinate with anybody in the white house or the secret service . So as i stated earlier, we were operating on unified comment with the United States secret service. On that day did you have communication with the white house and the secret service. Communication with the secret service. I wouldnt say it was with the white house. I would think they are two separate things. Mr. Chairman. Question of the chair. Mr. Gosar. Yeah, mr. Chairman, wasnt the order of the mayor of the d. C. To have no public at 7 00, is that the order that i keep hearing about . That is part of the testimony that was an order by the so it would make sense that you would start clearing earlier so that they could achieve that goal of the mayor. Convenient but no cigar. Let me ask mr. Cunningham, let me recognize mr. Cunningham for his five minutes. Sir, youre recognized. Mr. Clay . If hes still in line. And if there is no objection, if there is no objection to that, mr. Beyer be allowed to join the committee and ask questions. Hearing none. Mr. Beyer you are recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thank you for waving me on and i want to object to mr. Grays notion that were sponsoring a narrative. This is right across the river from my district. My goodness. I hope this is coming in. Mr. Chairman, i hope this computer is working well but it doesnt seem to be. Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, apparently the video traffic in alexandria has crushed this. So if i could go on with an audio, if that would be permissible . Permissible. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . There is no objections. Mr. Beyer. Okay, thank you. So acting chief monahan, i had and continue to have three key behavioral worries over the incident that day. First and foremost, for my constituents, this is right across from my district as you know and many of my constituents were in the crowd and in physical danger including my daughter and her fiance. I talked to many people there who describe a completely different picture than what you did. And i remain very worried about how Police Engagement has endangered many lawful and Peaceful Protesters. The second is what happened to the Arlington County police who are also my constituents and local police force who were weaponized under your authority that day. They were they were the front lines, the push of protesters was wholly inappropriate and not the understanding that county had for any sort of peaceful protest engagement that routinely happens in the nations capitol. That is where the chairman of the board pulled them back that their actions caused the local trust that they were working to rebuild and i know this was a cause of embarrassment and regret for them. And third and most importantly the behavior of the park Police Officers and again who are my constituents and through the day that day think lost our communities trust. And why is this important . Because in the National Capitol region, park police are an important local Law Enforcement entity and we depend on them to do the right thing and here they failed this. This is not the first problematic incident. And the reason that i say death in 2017 either but Lafayette Square had concerns. You talked about you couldnt talk about the interaction with the press because there was an Ongoing Investigation. Were in the same position with asara. I wrote you back in november of 2019, to get an update on the began sara investigation and i got a letter back eight months later say you you couldnt kmobt because there was an Ongoing Investigation over a period that happened almost three years ago. In the months after the murder i met with then chief mcclain who committed to me that the park police would adopt body cameras. And i thought that was smart and an excellent commitment to future accountability and transparency. In fact, the only reason we know about bee jan asar is because dash cams were on. And now it is 2020, we have the weird deal with the coms didnt work for the park and this is another flagrant red flag for park police behavior. And gagain because there was no body cam, we learned from other Law Enforcement. Ive been asking for body cameras to be adopted since they were commit the to me but the park police has not nor i have been provided for any rationale for lack of adoption and every other Law Enforcement in the department of interior has adopted body cameras. There is language in the house interior appropriations bill that we just pass the last week that gets you the money and addresses any policy concerns you may have thanks to betty mccollums leadership so there is no reason not to adopt body cameras. You would be in a much better position today with your testimony if you had them. Could you commit to me today that you will adopt body cameras . Thank you for the question, sir. So it is true the United States park police does not currently have Body Worn Camera program. Were supportive of such a program. We acknowledge its alignment with con tem por air trends in Law Enforcement as well as expectations from the public however at this time were not in a position to successfully implement manage and sustain a Body Worn Camera program. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask that the money and the policy is in the appropriations bill so i hope that will not be your ongoing answer. And with that, i yield back. First of all, mr. Monahan, thank you for appearing today. As we do have more questions to follow. I think in all of the discussion weve heard many things and why the june 1st incident in lafayette is so important because Everything Else that is going on around the issue, not only of questions of Police Reform, abuse, the calls by this administration and the president specifically of sending more and more federal presence into communities, whether they want them or not. I think the precursor to much of this discussion began to, first, with the president s presence there and the clearing, the premature clearing of the park. And just out of my own curiosity, did you, chief, know that the president was coming to saint johns and how did you learn about it . Yes, sir, so we were notified earlier in the day that the president was going to visit Lafayette Park to conduct to view the damage that was done to the park over the course of the preceding days. But we were not given a time on when he was visiting. And on the scene of that day, who the Tactical Command of the scene . In particular, who ordered the officers to move forward and the first surge at 6 30, who said no go or gave the command of the clearing . Did the order go through you to move forward at that time . Yes. So the order was given by the Incident Commander from the United States park police and on june 1st the Incident Commander was major mark adam jake. And go over for me the chain of command. Im following up on mr. Gallegos and other peoples question. The chain of command, youre going from the president down in terms of your role commanding the u. S. Park police as you do, literally lead the charge, and the two other agencies Arlington County and that were supporting the park police and d. C. National guard, so what is the chain of command in that process . Yeah, so the chain of command for an incident such as the one on june 1st, were operating under an ics model and our Incident Command Center mod em. The Incident Commander for the United States park police again was major mark adam. And we were operating on unified command so he had a counterpart on the secret service side. And who was above the Incident Commander from the park police. So he has full command and control of that operation and he has the authority to make any and all decisions for that operation. And the order was given verbally, in person, over the radio well not over the radio or using some other means . Which order are you referring to. The order to move to remove the crowd at 6 30. Yes, so in terms of the warnings given to the public, they were given via the use of a long range acutic device that we described earlier. He gave the first of three warnings beginning at 6 23 p. M. Prior to giving those warnings, he gave a briefing to all of the commanders that were going to be involved in the clearing of h street so they understand what the operation was and what the rules of engagement were. And who authorized park police to use weapons, munitions and devices that were used, the chemical irritants, did any of the lawyers that were supposed to review the actions say that it was okay, who would that be to authorize that . Yes, so the authorization on the rules of engagement lies with the Incident Commander. I concurred with the change in our rules of engagement for june 1st which prohibited the use of cs gas. Much has been said and for the people under your command, the officers that were hurt, were glad that they have made a recovery, theyre doing well. But i think one of the issues here today, too, is that, like i said, it is a precursor to much of the discussions going on about law and order and how politicized it has become. You know, part of the questions we have is whether our government even understands the difference between an unruly violent mob and people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. And even worse, chief, is the fact that were seeing the administration continue to expand this authoritarian approach to Law Enforcement with the issues in portland and other major cities. And like i said, june 1st stands out as a date and well continue to pursue and with that i dont have any other questions. Chief, appreciate your time and your cooperation. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman. Can i ask unanimous consent. Absolutely. To add to the record a fact cheat from doi regarding june 1st, the events. Without objection. Thank you. So ordered. If there are no other questions, thank you mr. Monahan. And well invite our next witness forward. Now well begin our second panel. If major demarco would join us. Thank you. Adam demarco is a strategy and operations consultant for Consulting Firm here in d. C. Hes also a major in the district of Columbia Army National Guard where he has served since completing his active duty with the u. S. Army in 2014. He is testifying pursuant to the military whistleblower protection act, i want to take a brief moment to recognize his father, mr. Frank demarco. Thank you for joining with us, sir, who has traveled a long way to be in the room with his son. And as a reminder, under Committee Rules, mr. Demarco, your oral statement is five minutes. Your entire statement is part of the record. And, again, thank you very much. And youre recognized for five minutes. Chairman, grijalva, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I come before the committee to help ensure there is a fair factual record of what happened at Lafayette Square based on what i saw and experienced firsthand. I especially want this committee, the residents of washington, d. C. And the American People to know that the d. C. National guard performed with the utmost professionalism and integrity, faithful to our constitution, under the most challenging circumstances. On june 1st, i served as a liaison between the District Of Columbia National Guard and the park police at Lafayette Square. The role of the National Guard was to support the park Police Operation to clear demonstrators from the vicinity of Lafayette Square. The immediateive of this clearing operation as park police informed me was to install a larger security barricade on h. Street along the Northern Edge of Lafayette Square. The d. C. National guard was not to be actively engaged in the clearing operation, rather we would follow behind and help to secure an expanded security perimeter once established by the park police. National guardsman had standard riot gear such as shields, shin guards and batons for defensive purposes but no National Guardsman were arthed with lethal or nonlethal arms that evening. The demonstrates were behaving peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. At 6 23 there was first of the warning announcements directing them to disperse. I did not expect the announcement so early as the d. C. Curfew was not in effect until 7 00 p. M. That evening. 40 minutes later. The warnings were conveyed using a mega phone near the statue of andrew jackson, 50 yards from the demonstrators. Where i was standing, the announcements were barely audible and saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the efforts to disperse. They cleared the operation. No National Guard personnel participated in the push or engaged in any other use of force against the demonstrators. As a clearing operation began, i heard explosions and saw smoke used to disperse protesters. The park Police Liaison officer told me that the explosions were stage smoke and that no tear gas was being deployed against the demonstrators. But i could feel irritation in my eyes and noses and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in training i recognized that consistent with cs or tear gas. And later that evening i found spent tear gas canisters on the street nearby. As park police pushed the demonstrators further down h. Street i saw demonstrators scattering and fleeing as park Police Charged toward them. I observed people fall to the ground and park police use shields offensively as weapons. As i walked behind park police pushing westward on h. Street i observed unidentified Law Enforcement personnel behind our National Guardsman using paint ball like weapons to discharge what i learned were pepper balls into the crowd as demonstrators continue to flee. After h. Street had a been cleared i took up a position on 16th street near saint johns church. At around 7 05 i saw the president walking on to h. Street from Lafayette Square near saint johns churchch the president s arrival was a complete surprise as he were not briefed he would entered our sector. The clearing operation, the materials did not arrive on scene until around 9 00 p. M. That evening and it was not completed until later on. Members of committee, the events i witnessed at lave on the evening of june 1st were deeply disturbing to me and fellow National Guardsman. Based on my training and experience at no time did i feel threatened by the protesters or assess them to be violent and based on established u. S. Military protocol for force in dealing with civil disturbances within the United States and overseas, it was my observation that the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force. From my observation those demonstrators are fellow american citizens were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force. As the late representative john lewis said, when you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to Say Something, to do something. The oath i swore as a military officer to support and defend the u. S. Constitution is a bedrock guiding principle for me, a foundation of the trust based in the armed forces by the American People and it compels me to Say Something, to do something, about what i witnessed on june 1st at Lafayette Square. I thank you for your time and this opportunity and look forward to your questions. Let me recognize, well begin the same way, mr. Huffman, recognized for five minutes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And major demarco, youre not part of the park police force so you may not be as familiar with the 2015 legal settlement that i discussed with the acting chief. But you did hear, i think, the elements of this settlement, the specific requirements of how when confronting protesters, the park Service Police are required to stage in a very specific way, with officers in the back of the crowd who would visually and verbally confirm that warnings were loud enough to be heard and understood, that those warnings needed to include a very clear reference to specific legal violations and a warnings that arrests would ensue. And so you were on the ground. Youve testified that you were just a few yards from the front line here. Tell me, if you can, if you believe that chief monahans version of this, that every one of the elements was complied with, to the letter, was that your experience as a firsthand witness . Sir, on the ground, im not aware of any long range acoustic device being in position or utilized for the proclamation to disperse. You talked about a mega phone, a standard mega phone. Now maybe that is what they mean when they say long range acoustic device. But the only thing you heard was a standard mega phone, correct. That is correct. A mega phone placed on a bench utilized through a hand held microphone. All right. And do you believe that it was audible enough to understood by the protesters throughout the crowd . Negative, sir. I could barely understand the message that was being delivered. Did you see anything to suggest that there were officers if the back of the crowd that were somehow confirming that it was loud enough to be understood . I did not observe that, sir. What about the behavior of the protesters, did anything in their reaction or behavior suggest to you that they had either understood or not understood what has been said in the mega phone. I saw no change in their disposition or posture. Did you hear, in the warning, did you have any specific reference to a law being violated. I could just make out every other word in the statement that was being delivered. All right. And i want to ask about the fencing. That is been offered as a justification for why this all had to happen. And the acting cleave sahief sa fencing contrary to your testimony had arrived several hours earlier but i think he said it was staged a couple of blocks away. Is there any reason why, if it was important to install that fencing as soon as it was on site, that it wouldnt have happened a couple of hours earlier if that fencing had already arrived by that point . Sir, i cant get into hypotheticals as to why it was not installed at that time. Based on the Army Training publications an the various doctrine that we use in installing and maintaining defensive static positions, certainly i would have looked at other time frames to install that fence. But you found it odd that you had a 7 00 p. M. Curfew coming up, just 25 minutes later, and the fencing could have been installed at that point and in a manner that avoided a confrontation potentially, am i understanding your suggestion correctly . At the time, i didnt make that correlation. I was just there focused on getting the mission and getting our soldiers safely off the lm tvs they arrived on and in support of park police. So about the mission, were you told this was about fencing . Yes, sir. Okay. Let me just ask if i could about the timing of the clearing of the crowd. There is some live tweeting from cnn, a cnn reporter that suggests from the moment that the advance began, i believe it was 6 35, within 10 minutes this crowd of several thousand people by all accounts was gone. That suggests to me that there was great urgency, there was a very rapid clearing of the crowd. Whats with your observation . Based off of Army Training publication 339. 33 entitled civil disturbance, that escalation to rapidly move and dispurse people is not accordance with what i understand to be the subjected and guided practice to clear the sector. So the urgency, the speed of that clearing was unusual in your experience, is that correct . I was taken by surprise, correct. Do you infer from that that was part of the objective, by the park police, that clearing with speed was their intention . Yes. Thank you, mr. Chair, i yield back. Mr. Hice. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Demarco for being here. In the previous panel, chief monahan testified that the decision to install the fencing was actually made two days before june 1st. It was on saturday the 30th of may. And that, of course, was in the aftermath of the most violent protests that took place over the weekend. The park service and the u. S. Secret service rightfully wanted to take steps to prevent that from happening. Were you a part of those discussions two days prior . No, sir. On the first of june, what kind of role did you have . Were you in a senior position of command and control or were you there primarily as a supportive role. I was not a commander nor was i the officer in charge. I was simply the liaison between the park police and the d. C. National guard. I would receive the missioning and taskings and alert the senior oic, officer in charge on the ground of what the park police was requesting. So a supportive role. Yes, sir. In that regard. Okay. Thank you. You state that the fencing did not arrive until 9 00 p. M. On june 1st, is that correct. Yes, sir. The folks on the ground, the park police and the secret service, share a different timeline. Here is the timeline that they have. The Fencing Company site manager arrived at 3 30 p. M. On june 1st. The Company Staff arrived shortly thereafter. The fencing material was delivered at 5 00 p. M. The order was given at 6 23. The square was cleared by 6 50 and material reportedly moved into the square immediately and construction began at 7 30. So i mean there is not a matchup in your timeline and what actually took place. How do you reconcile this. Yes, sir. From my position, which was on h street and 16th street, the First Sighting of the 18wheeler carrying the nonscaleable fence was at 9 00 p. M. That evening, on or around. An the completion of that fence did not occur until about 10 30 p. M. Later that evening. So i guess from what youre saying there is at least the possibility that from the location where you were, you were not able to see all of the activity and realize what was taking place elsewhere . That is correct, sir. However, the fence was only being installed along h. Street from connecticut to vermont. But the timeline, it started at 7 30, so im giving you the benefit of the doubt that your location, you didnt perhaps see all that was taking place. It is possible, sir. You stated just a few moments ago about the three warnings. Your testimony here, i was ran back and looking at it. You said that at 6 20, the park Police Issued and these are your words, park Police Issued first of three warnings announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse. So you just said you didnt hear that. But your testimony said that they gave three warnings. So they did but i did not hear the full proclamation that was being given. But around that time at 6 20 p. M. , excuse me, the warnings began. Okay, so how, if you didnt hear them, how were you aware they took place. Because i was approximately 30 yards away and i saw the park Police Officer with the mega phone laying on a bench holding you were 30 yards away from where. From the president jackson statue. So you heard the announcement . But i couldnt make out exactly what they were saying, sir. Enough to where you knew it was the first of three warnings to disperse. Negative, sir. On last that is your written testimony. Correct. If i was standing up at the line, i would have no idea what they were actually saying. I was in a position of privilege where i could hear and i expect the something to be coming from them. Again, your written testimony said at 6 20, it is very precise that they gave the first of three warnings. Anyway, we will go on from there. Let me just ask in closing, mr. Marco, i thank you for your service and a great deal of service that you have done and even politically, have you ever run for congress . Yes, sir. And when did you do that . 2018. And in what party. A democrat. Okay. I think it is very interesting that how a lot of these dots connect as we continue to defaming the Police Department and attacking them for their stated purpose of protecting Public Safety and the rule of law and the safety of our Law Enforcement and mr. Chairman ill yield back for now. Gentleman yields. Mrs. Holland is recognized. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, major demarco. Major demarco, it seems that some Law Enforcement officers at lafayette were not pleased about what they were asked to do on that day. Arlington county pulled their Police Officers from the role in assisting the u. S. Park police because they were shocked about how their officers were used to attack Peaceful Protesters. It seemingly just wasnt what they had signed up for. Weve heard about how members of the National Guard who were at Lafayette Square has struggled with the things they were asked to do on june 1st. Because it runs directly counter to the very reasons they decided to serve their country, and to their oath to support and defend the constitution. In your testimony today you courageously expressed similar sentiments that what you saw our government do was wrong, and that it was difficult to reconcile being put in that situation with your commitment to your country and your fellow americans. Could you tell us a bit more about how this affected you personally as an officer in the National Guard . Yes, maam. And thank you for that question. In the days following june 1st, i struggeded to process exactly what had happened and taken place. To the point where i was sleeping very little and i started trying to figure out what the next steps were. I confided in several other officers within the District Of Columbia National Guard and other friends and advisers that ive served with both on active duty and in support of active duty operations. A couple of days later i decided that i need to memorialize my record or my memory and i wrote my own sworn statementond my own volusion and i read it in front of another officer and he signed off on it because i knew something was wrong but i didnt know what. And then it was shortly thereafter that i started reaching out to seeing what could be done because i truly felt compelled that i had to Say Something. I started talking to other soldiers, soldiers in my unit, soldiers that i have a Supervisory Authority over and they were expressing many of the same consternations and concerns. So i knew that it wasnt just me who had witnessed this and felt there was something both morally and legally wrong and in trying to process that, i realized that i am in a position as a major in the United States Army National guard where i can do something. And that is why i decided to come forward. Thank you. Thank you, major, and im sorry you were put in that position. Are you aware of any other concerns from other people, other colleagues in the d. C. National guard that were there that day and have they shared with you how this incident has affected them . Yes, maam. One of the soldiers in my unit, without giving out any personally identifiable information, is not a native born american citizen from a developed country. And in talking to him and helping him trying to understand what he saw and his role in that, which he acted honorably, he said that the events of june 1st were those that he expect the to see in his home country. Not here in the United States. And that was a very troubling statement that i heard from him. But i told him that we were doing the right thing and it is another reason on a long litany of reasons why im here today to testify. And along the same lines, what does being put in this kind of situation do for the morale and the Mental Health of the people you serve with . The District Of Columbia National Guard has been outstanding in ensuring that our soldiers airmen have received the support from both chaplain and emotional support counselors to ensure that they understand and they have the Resources Available if they need any further counseling. And major demarco, as an officer would you ever put your fellow guardsmen or women in a position where they were attacking citizens who were largely peacefully protesting . Absolutely not, maam. And you mentioned in your statement that mark milley reminded you that the d. C. Guard was there to respect the rights of protesters. Were you and your guard members confused why you had been told you were there to protect the rights of americans and then realized that you were asked to back up officers as they attacked these same protesters you were supposed to respect. Negative, maam. When we arrived in support of the United States park police, we arrived to help them but also to maintain our or to serve under our oath to support and defend the constitution. Just because were in a supporting role does not change the way we operate or the laws we abide by. Thank you for answering my questions. I yield, chairman. Thank you. Major demarco, since you have said you brought up the First Amendment, at least three times, maybe more in your statement, you said we were there to respect the demonstrators First Amendment rights. Was that the order that was given you guys in the National Guard . Get out there and your job is to respect the demonstrators First Amendment rights. Who gave that order. Negative, sir, that was a statement from general mark milley. Oh, yeah, that is the same chairman of the joint chiefs that went out and criticized the president of the United States. This is a Different Military than the one i served in. Because when i was in the army, at fort benning, commanders constantly reminded us that, look, Everybody Knows that president carter is doing terrible damage to the military but if anyone criticizes their commanderinchief anywhere but very privately, theyll either get an article 15 or theyll be court martialed. So this is a new military im finding where the chair of the joint chiefs feel it is perfectly okay to demean his commanderinchief, and then you felt the need to come out and testify differently from what we have heard from people within the administration and others that were out there. So im trying to get used to this new military where you dont really feel an obligation to answer to the civilian elected commanderinchief. So this is really intriguing. Now, the rules of evidence and relevance here are much more relaxed than they are in a jury trial. But even in a jury trial, you would be compelled to ask, did the Democratic Party give you any Financial Assistance when you ran against John Sarbanes for congress . Nos. I was all selffinanced. Do you have any idea how many publications have mentioned your name since you came out against the reports by people within the administration at Lafayette Square . Any idea. Negative, sir, i put my phone on do not disturb last night. Okay, well apparently it is a whole lot more that you got when you got that 8. 5 or so running for congress. So, it looks like this is going to serve you well with the Democratic Party. But i am still quite concerned about our military. So, your job was observe the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators. When you were out there when the saint johns was set on fire. The two fires that were set on the church. Sir, i was there the evening, or that evening. By the time the church fire was reported, i was over by the lincoln memorial. Do you know do you happen to know of your own personal knowledge who the peaceful loving demonstrator was or demonstrators that set the church on fire . I have no knowledge of who there apparently were some injures out there. Are you familiar with how many Law Enforcement officers have been hurt by peaceful, lawabiding, loving demonstrators. Im aware of the injures that occurred between the periods of 29 may to 31 may which is abhorrent. Im also aware of the injures of six National Guard personnel that were injured during that time frame. Were they injured by park police . Negative, sir. They were injured. One was concussed from a projectiles. That is one of the people just observing his First Amendment rights . Do you know what Supreme Court cases include in the First Amendment rights, the right to con cuss Law Enforcement . Sir, i have to legal background so i cant answer that. All right. Just curious. Well, i really have no other questions for this witness. I yield back. So mr. Lowenthal, youre recognized. Can you hear can you hear me now . Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Major, let me just get the question. Major. First, thank you for testifying and im concerned about what i have read about and learned a little bit about. Do you know anything about army hospitale e helicopters hovering low in washington, d. C. , relating to the event on june 1st . Yes, sir. Can you discuss these and what you know, what is said to be true . Can you u discuss what you know . Yes, sir, after the clearing of h street, i was informed by the United States park police that there will be low flying military helicopters in our of operations. After that, i observe d the firt black hawk helicopter flying north of my position, which was at that point, 16th and i street. I observed the helicopter had no d d distinlgtive markings, however, the doors were open. I assume d it was a Public Affairs helicopter taking pictures of the United States park police. Later that evening as the wall r or fence was being built along h street, i then heard radio transmissions over the radio. The d. C. National guard internal communications network, that there was a low flying helicopter in the vicinity of 15th and f street, near chinatown. The transmissions that i was receiving were that there was a low flying helicopter and it was making the pepper spray of the d. C. Metro Police Department ineffective. I kept hearing this. I didnt know what was going on as it was out of our sector. I then call ued to the d. C. Armory and spoke to an officer and asked him if he had any information as to what was happening. I told him the report i heard. I hung up the phone and that was the last i heard of it. Was there anything that had medical markings on them . You mentioned earlier that you believe that the park police knew it in advance or at least that some of these helicopter operations were going to occur. Can you explain that a . Yes, sir, to your first question, later reporting indicates that one of the helicopters flying in the vicinity of 15th and f street had a medical red cross designation on it. The first i learned about army assets was from the United States park police. Do helicopters fly when they fly this low, is that a, an intimidation maneuver . The metropolitian i believe Police Department complained that it made it hard for them to use pepper spray or pepper, to use pepper spray r or balls. Sir, im not a pilot and my aviation experience is very limited so i cant speak to the tactics, techniques and procedures of our aviation, assets and pilots. Does using helicopter in this way strike you as sensible, a safe way to do it . These operations . Sir, im not in a position to talk about the safety or unsafe actions of pilots. But you are aware that park police knew in advance, at least that some of these helicopter were going to be there. Based off the timeline and notification, yes, sir. Can you just explain, how are these helicopters to be used or did you know that they were used . I was not aware of their task and purpose within the area of operations. Okay. Thank you. Im going to yield back. Recognize the gentleman from arizona. Major, you reached the conclusions that protestors were subject to an unprovoked escalation on june 1st. However, this historically different characterization of events compared to what we just heard from the chief. Now, you testified that the d. C. National guard was outfitted with standard riot gear. I assume you were, too. Did you not . Negative, sir. We had a shortage of riot gear. So when i was op the scene, i had a protective mask, a ballistic vest, but no baton, shin guards or face visor. In your testimony, you claimed to be the senior National Guard officer on the scene. Did you make the decision to fully outfit the d. C. National guard in riot gear that day . Negative, sir. That came from the District Of Columbia National Guard commander and commanding general. So somebody more senior than you must have anticipated some level of violence and your fellows were injured. Did you express any disagreement with your senior officer about the anticipation of violence prior to your deployment to the area . Negative, sir. That uniform they were outfitted with is a part of the standard operating procedures. Now youre a military officer. We had a member from the other side of the aisle ask chief Law Enforcement officer for a park police about the following illegal orders. If you thought the protestors were so peaceful and again, you were the senior National Guard officer on the scene, why did you have your soldiers participate in this mission . Sir, we were there in a static defensive line. We did not engage in the active clearing of h street. By the way, whos order was it or curfew . That was the District Of Columbia mayor, mayor bouzer, who instituted that curfew, sir. So, can you tell us a little bit more about the six members that were injured . You said one was hit by a projectile, concussion . Yes, sir. And would you consider that peaceful . Now while you describe the p protestors as peaceful, chief moynihan said many were violent. Please answer the following questions. Written testimony describes bricks and rocks being thrown at law officers. Would you consider that peaceful or violent . Violent, sir. Chief continued stating costic liquids and Water Bottles were aim a ed at law enforcemen officers. Peaceful or violent. Violent. They lit flares and fireworks. Even thrown at Law Enforcement officers. Would you r consider that peaceful or violent . Violent, sir. Finally, two by four sections of wood were thrown at Law Enforcement officers. Does that seem peaceful of violent to you. Violent, sir. Let me ask you another question. The conversation was talking about health. You said you were privy to what was happening. Could it have been used to take photographs . Yes, sir. Wouldnt that be smart to find out how things were moving from the skies because youre kind of blinded on the ground, arent you . Use of aviation asset for aerial observations would give you a different lens to look at the mission. Make it more effective . Would it not . It would add a different lens to view the mission, sir. But it would make it more effective. There is nothing more effective than the on the ground truth from the Incident Commanders or commanders. Oh, no, no, no new york ci,. You want to make sure you see all the things that are working. You cant see that from your perspective on the ground. You dont have 360 viewpoint. What front is move iing, retreating. You dont know any of that. Thats why air power, air traffic, is very good. I mean, we use it on every day cities for traffic control. Do we not . Sir, i would respectfully disagree from my time overseas in combat zones. There is nothing more important than our sensors on the ground, which are our young men and women in uniform. I totally disagree. If you use it for city traffic. Why wouldnt we look at pedestrian traffic as well . Because you u, and the comments to mr. Gomer about the church. You werent there so you didnt know what was going on, so from my standpoint, coordinated effect, once again, i find it disenfranchising to say this is a peaceful demonstration. They have an obligation when they see violence to turn them in. Otherwise, youre as guilty by association. I yield back. Relative to major demarco having to do with west point family issues. Anticipating questions about his own character and background. And not only questions, but i want to file these as additional objection so ordered. And one u of the pictures has him taking a picture with him and george bush when he was a senior at west point. George w. Bush. A known sub mer sieve to some people, but never the less. I thought that was important. How long were you at Lafayette Square . When did you get there . Al pp 5 30 p. M. June 1st. Okay. What time again . About 5 30 p. M. Had you been on sight before this . Yes, sir. Okay. And would you describe the civilians, protestors, on june 1st, when you arrived. It was drastically different than the night before. June 1st, i would describe them as peacefully assembled. We can agree that may 29th, there were violent protestors. Sir, i was only there on may 31st. What did you observe on may 31st . I observed a riot. Based off of Army Training publication 3. 33, it was classified as a riot. I would say it was a riot, also. On june 1st, from your estimation, that was not the case. There was peaceful protesting happening. Based off of that same Army Training publication, yes. You have extensive training in control. No formalized training except from our field manuals. Ive never attended the military police force or any other forces. Someone within your unit had though im assuming. Yes, sir. So at 5 30, you arrive. Did you get an assessment report . You were taking over duty for that fulltime peritime period. No, sir. We were just arriving. Who did you meet with to gif you an assessment . I hooked up with my park poli police liason. The park Police Officer, how did they describe the day to you u . Did they describe how the day was . The scenario, the climate . In the situation i received, it was much different than the day before. What was that specifically . I cant remember. Can you describe it when you see as much, did they at any point seem to indicate the crowd was calmer and more peaceful. That was the general atmosphere. Then you were told that you were going to stand in line and form essentially a wall while the park police pushed on protesto protestors. Probably about ten minutes after you arrived. The reasoning for that was the stated objective was to essentially clear the area to facilitate this wall or fence to come into the ao. But there was never anything that indicated this had to happen at x amount of time or a sense of urgency theyd have to rush these protestors for that. So there was, sir. When i received the mission briefing, i specifically asked for a timeline of events and i said when is this going to commence. What i heard back was as soon as possible. And then i also heard that they were expecting us to be there much earlier in the evening. Okay. Got it. When the protestors started in pushback, your Standing Orders were to what . Maintain a static perimeter along h street then once the sector was cleared, they would then relieve or excuse me, reenforce and relieve the park police on the northern border. So essentially wh youwhat ye saying for my civilian colleagues is that you were b e basically owning territory as you moved. A wall essentially and occupy ing territory so no pressure. Yes, sir. Has anyone, you or your unit, saw how they were clearing the protestors, find it out that that was the matter with which they cleared protestors . From my experience, the training i had, i never would have imagined they would clear, especially peaceful protestors, swinging your batons and throwing tear gas and chemicals into a crowd. Because that only induces chaos which creates more resistance. Did you feel that or did anyone in your unit think this was a very odd way to clear people . Based off of the application of Army Training publications, i saw that as an ineffective way the deescalate the situation. Right. Did you see any attempts of deescalation prior to them moving the crowd, not taking them to the to calm the situation . Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Fox, sir. Recognized. Thank you, chairman. Major, in his testimony, june 1st prior to the 6 35 as violent. In fact, he said in his written testimony, quote, in all the crowd assessment of violence and danger presented by the crowd led to the clearing of the park and installation of the fence, end quote. Id like to play some video and ask a few questions about it. Unlike the videos my republican colleagues played at the last meeting, this video is actually from Lafayette Square on june 1st. Not from other cities or days or other countries. Lets play the video. These videos show the protest crowd before the park police opened up. We have no mask. We are protecting yourself from the tear gas youre spraying on us we dont have any weapons. No weapons. We just have our words. We just want some equality. Thats all we want those video show the protest crowd before the officers attacked. Did that video show a riot or other violent activity . No, sir. Id certainly agree with that. Did anything you u see in either of those videos justify the way Law Enforcement carried the area . No, sir. Id agree with you on that again. From which you saw, do these videos represent the overall demeanor of the crowd attending the protest that day . I cant generally observe the crowd, but that is credit. Thank you so much. The fact that mr. Moynihan cant acknowledge the protest that day was peaceful tells us something very troubling about the administrations conduct that day. Make us all wonder whether he understands the difference between a violent mob and people exercising their First Amendment right. Even worse, were seeing the administration continue this author titarian approach with these crackdowns in portland and other major cities. To me, this is attack on our democracy, our constitution. I used to remember on the other side when they called themselves the constitutionalists. Were constitutional conservative. Where has that gone . I can imagine that this is put you in great personal, professional jeopardy. Would that statement be true . Recent events have me concerned, sir. Just getting back to the oath we both swore to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, is that not the bedrock guiding principle that defends our way of life . I would agree with you 100 , sir. Is that why youre here today . Yes, sir. I think its a great tribute to our great colleague, john lewis. When you see something not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to see something, to do something. With your presence here today, you are saying something and doing something. On behalf of a certainly grateful congressman here, want to thank you to your service and your family and express my sentiments. I think youre a hero. With that, ill yield the balance of my time. Let me recognize mr. Clone. Thank you, mr. Sherman. I want to yield my time to mr. Gomer. I appreciate my colleagues so much. Personally and professionally. Thank you. Theres a significant difference between members of Congress Taking the oath and those of us who have taken commissioned officer oath of office because obviously in the military, we have suppeperior officers. Mine are the 800,000 or so that i serve. And i cant be court marshalled for disrespecting the people that i serve. Not that i would do that. But im curious. You mentioned in your Opening Statement, you said i was tasked to serve as a liason between the d. C. National guards Task Force Civil disturbance and the park police at Lafayette Square. Who else was . You say you were one of them. We had several officers across the National Capitol region. I was just the park police for that specific operation. And who tasked you . Who ordered dwr eed you to take position . The commander of the task force disturbance. Who . The commander. I would rather not reference his name. Oh, so we cant verify that you were tasked with that position. Just forced to take your word for it . So when you say commander, commander of what. The task force. The Task Force Civil disobedience. Disturbance. Right. Okay. You stated the materials to erect the security barrier did not arrive. Im quoting. Did not arrive on the scene until around 9 00 p. M. Chief monahan testified a much different timeline with materials arriving earlier in the afternoon. So, are you feeling strong ly enough about him arriving at 9 00 that you would believe chief monahan was lying . Sir, i can only speak to my account and as a fact witness, the times i hathat i have prese are accurate. So, its not possible according to you that the materials to build the security barrier did not arrive earlier that afternoon. Sir, i cant talk about hypotheticals. Its not a hypothetical. Im asking you specifically. Is it possible based on your knowledge and what you saw and observed, that those materials could have arrived much earlier . Its certainly a possibility, however, based off of my statement and timeline of events as a fact witness, the materials did not arrive on h street until 9 00 p. M. That evening. You keep saying youre a fact witness, but youre also apparently being put up as a legal expert because youve indicated a number of times these people were there to observe their firamendment righ. I understand with your mba, that apparently qualifies you to make constitutional judgments like that, but isnt it possible that those materials did arrive earlier and were at another location . Its certainly possible, sir. I have nothing further. I neeld back. Garcia, youre recognized. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today and for providing your honest testimony. I think it makes it more clear in your testimony what they did that day was not only inappropriate, but also reckless and most likely unconstitutional. One of the things that you said in your testimony was a that general miley approached you before the incident. After you briefed him, he told you to ensure that the National Guards men must remacalm and yo must respect the demonstrators First Amendment right. Before the Law Enforcement search, did you see protest aquitivity that crossed the line to violence, rioting and other behavior that we dont generally consider protected under the constitution . Based off of army publication, specifically chapter 214, crowd management tactics, the situation there would be construed as law fly assembled. Aside from the generals comments to you about the First Amendment, did the general give you any indication or show any concern that the protestors rights may be violated . Negative, sir. What was your reaction to seeing what the federal government did to those p protestors as they exercised their first amounted rights . I was certainly surprised at the timeline of events. And certain ly the escalation o ooemp events. Black and brown communities are being ravaged by the deadly virus and an unprecedented economic crisis. Now, theyre being terrorized by a threat of a militarized secret and federal police force in washington, d. C. Weve discussed it at length today in portland. Possibly in chicago. Trumps violent suppression of demonstrators in Lafayette Square was not only reckless, it is a direct threat to our democracy and it is staring at us in the eye. The actions leading up to tru trumps photo op have drawn outrage from around the world. The kind of actions we would normally condemn in other countries are now happening here at home. Demonstrations like the ones we witnessed in the wake of the killings of george floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others should never be met with deadly force by Law Enforcement. I yield back, mr. Chairman. You mentioned youve served in combat zones and understand how to assess threat environments. You said at no time did you feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent. Is that correct . Yes, sir. You also mentioned that the use of force against protestors in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation. Was that correct . Yes, sir. And youve had extensive training in dealing with protests and protestors known as civil disturbances as have all the d. C. National guard that were there on june 1st. Is that correct . Yes, sir. Could you please explain the fundamental strategy of graduated responses specific to civil disturbance and why thats important . Yes, a graduated response process in 339. 33 entitled civil disturbances, is a measured approach in response to a crowd gathering. By recognizing a use of force policy, soldiers must be taught to understand that they use the minimum force necessary. Thank you. Without the appearance, the gathering crowd may think its excessive causing hostilities or violence. So what were hearing is that the widespread violation of rights at Lafayette Square was acceptable because there was violence happening before june 1st and in other places. Should it be used as a pretest to force . Absolutely not. Say hypothetically there was widespread violence. Say this was an actual war zone, where violence was persistence, but on one particular day, the protests were peaceful. Youve done tours of duty include ng iraq. If the events on june 1st in Lafayette Square were happening in iraq when you were serving, would you have been able to handle protests the way park police and their partners handled them on june 1st. Negative, sir. Based off of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and fm 67. Thats incorrect. We would not be able to handle or use riot control agents dispersing the crowds. And major, could you describe in the broadest terms what the Geneva Convention is . Who it is meant for and what happens to someone that violates it . Sir, im not a legal expert, but i can say it specifically prohibits riot control agents from being used in a war zone. Major, earlier this morning, we heard from acting chief monahan who said the officers used, and i quote, tremendous restraint. Based on your training and experience, what do you think of that statement from acting chief monotan . Sir, my opinion. Tremendous restraint does not involve the use of defensive equipment as weapons. So it wouldnt be tremendous restraint. Yes, sir. Thank you. Ill yield back. Mr. Desoto, youre recognized sir. Recognized for five minutes. Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I am here. And thrilled to be included. Recognized for five minutes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The operations given the operation to install fencing is one excuse why the protestors were violently cleared from Lafayette Square on o june 1, but we know that the clearing commenced around 6 30. Youve also said in your testimony the crowd did not appear to hear the warnings and it was cleared well before the curfew at 7 00 p. M. You said the crowd was peaceful. You said it was remove d around 9 00 p. M. How did you know that . Sir, i had made visual observations of the fencing as it arrived on h street. That was, you were pushed back on that by some of my republican friends earlier. You were at 16th and h street, right . And the fence was supposed to go up along h. Correct, sir. And fence was going to go from connecticut avenue to vermont along h . Yes, sir. Thats about two blocks. And isnt 16th street right in the middle of those two blocks . Yes, sir. Wouldnt it have been almost impossible not to see big trucks pulling up with big fences at either one of those blocks . Yes, sir. I think your testimony on the 9 00 p. M. Is very, very credible. Major, based on your training in civil disturba banss, when is t best time to set up a new perimeter or install a new fence . Sir, to set up a new perimeter or defensive Security Posture would be in the Early Morning hours before the swren public would be awake. Why would it be unwise to set up a new perimeter, a new fence, in the middle of the day when the number of protestors is at its peak . Does it present any danger to Law Enforcement personnel . I cant speak for Law Enforcement personnel. I can tell you as a commander or if i were the officer in charge, i would not look for the high time of, like foot traffic, to set those up. Were you u told why the operation was going to go forward during the peak time of Late Afternoon or evening while the protest was at its peak rather than at night or the next morning. No, sir. It would make sense that it was set up sometime later when the crowd was smaller . Yes, sir. Major, you mentioned in your written testimony that attorney general barr was on the scene talking with the park police shortly before the clearing happened. Is that correct . Correct, sir. Do you think he had something to do with the order to clear protestors or do you believe that its simply a remark bable coincidence . Sir, i cant offer my opinion. Just give you the facts as i solve them. Thank you. I appreciate that. Weve heard a few things. Installing fences in the middle of a protest is not a sound practice. The fencing didnt even arrive until hours after the protest had cleared. The crowd was peaceful. Dispersed suddenly. Shortly after attorney general barr left Lafayette Square and President Trump just happened to have a photo op just shortly after the clearing. The crowd wasnt violent. The fencing didnt arrive until much later. Whats the most logical reason for why the violent clearing of protestors happened given your knowledge and expertise . Sir, i cant hypothesize or speculate on to the events and why they transpired along the timeline that they did. Okay. Id appreciate your sticking to the facts based stuff. Major, my number one complaint is helicopter noise because i represent the district that includes the pentagon and much else. Im trying to think in the 70 years ive lived in and around washington, inaugurations, the womens march, lots and lots of marches and demonstrations and the other time, unmarked low flying helicopters were used. Can you remember any other time . That the many different demonstrations weve had . No, sir. Zbr. Nor can i, which is why i think it was so upsetting for so many people to have these things that once again suggested we were in afghanistan rather than downtown washington, d. C. Major, thank you very much for coming forward and mr. Chairman, i yield back. Let me thank you. Pree appreciate information, your testimony and the fortitude to come forward. Given the reputation and the actions of this administration, retaliation and retribution is not beyond them. And we have many cases, too. I appreciate. Many of us would be in a similar amount of trouble. Attorney general has said that june 1st incident was u the result of ordinary planning to extend the prerimeter line. Weve talked about that. Around Lafayette Square. Absolutely nothing to do with giving the president his photo opportunity at the church. Based on what you witnessed but you know about that day, your testimony. Is this statatisfactory . Sir, respectfully, im not here to hypothesize. Im just a fact based witness. Cant talk about the kcausation or correlation. You testify ied that no National Guards men had lethal or non lethal munitions at Lafayette Square. Are you aware of any munitions being ready for use by the National Guard . On the evening of june 1st, the only munitions that im aware of is the transfer of weapons from ft. Belvoir up to the d. C. Armory and that was my unit. Okay, and what kind of they were m4 carbons, sir. And thats an Assault Rifle. Its of the Assault Rifle variation. And do you know what the reposition was in preparation for . I dont know what it was in preparation for. I just know my soldiers executed that movement. Okay. Thank you. The issue that were confronts across the structure is a question of protests across the country and i think lafayette was a precursor and pretext to a lot of the discussion thats going on. And this hearing is not just simply about what happened to Lafayette Square. But also the pretext and the precedent there. You might not want to speculate or state the opinion on that, but i firmly believe that what happened in Lafayette Square was a consequence to creating a photo opportunity and a theme and a Campaign Theme for President Trump. And attorney general bar was making the calls all the way along the line. Well continue to seek information and pursue that. But i also think that whats going on in the nation right now, that there is peaceful, lawful, First Amendment demonstrations going on and the vast majority of people involved in them are people that respect that. Nonviolent and peaceful. Just like john lewis and that legacy. The opportunist who attempt to hijack either for a political agenda that has not fit into the black lives Matter Movement or to a social justice movement, theyre political opportunists and the critical opportunist has a chance to do, to do other kinds of harms to property and theyre going to take advantage of it. But to use a broad brush as this administration used in Lafayette Square, that everybody that was in that place and that square was criminals, anarchists and bent on destruction of federal assets and attacking federal police in this instance, the park services. I believe that is absolutely false. Those generalizations coming in by this administration and this law and order that theyre on are just that. Generalizations. And in some cases, outright lies. I think we should be very concerned about the authoritarianism that is going on that is make iing the questi that were asking here today more and more relevant and more urgent. With that, meeting is adjourned. I yield back. And thank you very much. Thank you, sir. In his run for the presidency, joe biden will deliver remarks today on his build back better plan to bolster the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. Watch live at 2 30 eastern on cspan3. Online at cspan. Org or listen with the cspan free radio app. Tonight on American History tv. Our series landmark cases concluded with two programs produced in cooperation with the National Constitution center, we explore the issues, people and places involved in some of the nations most significant Supreme Court cases. We begin at 8 00 eastern with greg versus georgia which established stricter guidelines for states wishing to impose the death penalty. The decision also fine tuned the courts interpretation of the eighth and 14th amend lts. At 9 t 35, regents of the university of california versus bakke. Both striking down the program and upholding the instituti constitutionality under the 14th amend. Watch tonight on cspan3 and anytime on cspan. Org. A live look here at the u. S. Capitol, where the body of georgia congressman, john lewis, is lying in state. He arrived in washington