of course, there is still the mueller investigation. this hearing, we can tell you, is still running a bit behind schedule. that's because a spokesman for the judiciary committee says chairman nadler was involved in some kind of crash today on his way from washington to new york, we're told that the congress is okay, no one was hurt. but it is delaying things just a bit there on the hill. so while we wait, let's turn to our reporters. nbc's garrett haake is following the hearing for us on the hill. i want to bring in our justice correspondent pete williams. garrett, i'll start with you. the attorney general's first appearance before the committee. obviously democrats are going to want answers about a number of things. i just laid out a few of them. walk us through what you think will be among the most contentious topics, shall we say. >> democrats have long sought the hearing with this attorney general. for months they wanted to get him here to talk about all those issues you laid outgoing back to the mueller report. these hearings tend to generate more heat than light. the judiciary committee is typically the most partisan committee on the hill. i think the issues that will be top of mind for democrats in particular as they press bill barr, will be those most closest to where we are in this moment. the heavy handed, they believe, of controlling protests i think will be top of mind. so, too, will be the commutation of roger stone and the handling of the michael flynn case. some of these throughlines of the entire trump presidency. democrats want to get an opportunity to question bar about quite some time. the other that sticks out to me will be the firing of the u.s. attorney in manhattan. so much as democrats have been stymied in washington with their investigations of this president and his administration, those things have gone out out in the districts, in the states with state and federal prosecutors farther away from washington, d.c. the southern district of new york was handling a number of sensitive investigations that related to this president. so i think democrats will be sharply focused on those issues to start. but there is no shortage of potential story lines here with the attorney general who, as i said, democrats have wanted to get into that chair for months and months now, craig. >> garrett, any new guidance on timing? any idea on when this thing may get under way? >> reporter: i've reached out to the committee ourself. our team has not seen barr on the hill. i spoke too soon. five to ten minutes. we'll get it happening before this commercial break. >> that is live reporting there, garrett haake on the hill. do stand by if you can. let's turn to justice correspondent pete williams. pete, we don't hear from the attorney general a great deal, rare public testimony. what should we be watching and listening for? >> we don't hear from him in testimony before congress. it's been a little more than a year since his last testimony and that was on the senate side. i think, if i can break it down, a lot of partisanship differences, but then there's genuine policy differences and some areas where some good questioning might find more common ground than you think there is. for example, on this issue of protests, the government has been pushing back saying federal agents are not in portland to control protests. that what they're concerned about is violent attacks on federal facilities, people trying to set fire at the federal courthouse in portland and attacks on federal agents. i think where you might get some productive questioning is to y say, okay, protecting a federal building is certainly legitimate use of federal agents. and then the question becomes what about around the federal building, how far should these agents that are there go? for example, there have been lots of instances where the force that's around the courthouse in portland has pushed out and deployed teargas in the streets of portland. is that a legitimate use? is that part of what they're doing? there might be interesting policy discussions on that. i think in addition to things that you and garrett have been talking about, there may be questions about concern about fraud invote by mail. the attorney general said he's worried about other countries trying to interfere with our election, by introducing fraudulent mail-in ballots into the election system, printing them up and dumping them out. would that really work? some election officials say no, you have to actually look at signatures on the ballots, compare them with registered signatures. that would be a very complicated thing to do. another question that may come up is the census. the president says he thinks census takers should not count undocumented migrants. it's long been the position of the justice department that when the constitution says actual innumeration, it means count everybody, count bodies. so does the president -- does the attorney general agree with that change in justice department policy. and then this whole question about whether the police department should be defunded. in his prepared testimony he calls that irresponsible. he says that reducing the size of police forces in american cities would actually hurt inner cities the most and that the whole issue is, he thinks that police departments, the black community understandably doesn't trust the police departments given a long history. he says they have become much more diverse with more black police officers, black police chiefs, and that defunding police departments would be a bad move. in addition to the partisan issues, there's genuine policy questions as well. >> our justice correspondent pete williams there. pete, while you were walking us through what we could expect, the attorney general of the united states arrived there at the capitol. this was the scene just a few moments ago. bill barr making his way to that conference room. by the way, this, like so many things these days, will look a little different. in addition to seeing all the lawmakers in those face coverings, those masks, you'll also only see eight members of congress on that dais at a time. this is a large committee, talking 40 members. you'll have eight at a time. the rest, as you can see there, already in the audience. they'll rotate on to the stage when it is their turn to speak. the attorney general is seated now. i believe we do have still a few moments before we start our opening statements. so let's talk to daniel goldman, former majority counsel during the house impeachment of president trump as well as the former director of investigations for the house intelligence committee. also former assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. chuck rosenberg is with me, former u.s. attorney, former senior cia official and maya wiley, former assistant attorney, now professor of the new school. all three are msnbc contributors and legal analysts. mr. goldman, i apologize in advance if i have to cut you off. the chairman is taking a seat there. if you're working with the judiciary committee right now, what would you counsel democrats to keep as a top priority in their questioning? >> i think the top priority is to pin down bill barr on as many lies over the past year, undermine his credibility, demonstrate that he has viewed this job as a political arm of the president. i think there's a lot of evidence to that effect. there's the firing of geoffrey berman, the intervention into the roger flynn and roger stone cases, the undermining of the russia investigation. the shiny object is what is currently going on. it is important and it is real and they will get into it. but the portland stuff will also take center stage. >> all right, daniel, thank you. we'll come back to you after. we'll get opening 125i789s now from the chairman and the ranking members and then attorney general bill barr. >> -- minor car accident on the way in this morning. everyone is fine except perhaps the car, but it did cause significant delay. i thank the attorney general and the members for their patience and flexibility. we will now begin. before we begin, i want to acknowledge -- want to note we are joined this morning by the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. leader hoyer has long recognized the need for vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch under both parties, and we appreciate his presence here today as we question the attorney general. before we begin, i would like to remind members we established an email address and distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions or other written materials that members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. if you'd like to submit materials, please send them to the email address previously distributed to your offices and we'll circulate the materials to members and staff as quickly as we can. i would also remind all members that guidance from the office of attending physician says face coverings are required in closed spaces such as this committee hear. i expect all members on both side of the aisle to wear a mask except when you're speaking. i'll now recognize myself for an opening statement. thank you for being here, mr. barr. according to the congressional research service this is the first time you have appeared before the house judiciary committee, both during your first fen your as attorney general 30 years ago and during your current service in the trump administration. welcome. 150 years ago last month, in the aftermath of the civil war, congress created the department of justice. we did so with two missions in mind. first, we wanted to replace a system of party spoils with a core of professional government attorneys. yes, these attorneys would be supervised by the attorney general and, yes, the attorney general would remain a political appointee. but at its heart, the department would rely on a foundation of professionals dedicated to the impartial administration of the law and an unbiased system of justice. second, congress established the department of justice to enforce the nation's first civil rights laws after the civil war. from that moment on, it became the department's responsibility to ensure the right to vote and to stem the tide of systemic racism. now, not every attorney general in the intervening 150 years has given full expression to these two goals. i am certain that every administration has fallen short of those promises in some way overtime. but today, under your leadership, sir, these two objectives are more at risk than at any time in modern history. your tenure has been marked by a persistent war against the department's professional core in an apparent attempt to secure favors for the president. others have lost sight of the importance of civil rights laws. but now we see the full force of the federal government brought to bear against citizens demonstrating for the advancement of their own civil rights. there is no precedent for the department of justice to actively seek out conflict with american citizens under such flimsy pretext or for such petty purposes. 150 years later, we are again at a pivotal moment in our nation's history, mr. barr. we are confronted with a global pandemic that has killed 150,000 americans and infected more than 16 million worldwide. we are coming to grips with a civil rights struggle long swept under the rug, if not outright ignored by our government. we are as a nation witnessing the federal government turn violently on its own people. and although responsibility for the government's failure to protect the health, safety and constitutional rights of the american people belongs squarely to president trump, he could not have done this alone. he needed help. after he finished utterly humiliating his first attorney general, he found you. in your time at the department, you have aided and abetted the worst failing of the president. let us recount just some of the decisions that have left us deeply concerned about the department of justice. first, under your leadership the department has endangered americans and violated their constitutional rights by flooding federal law enforcement into the streets of american cities against the wishes of the state and local leaders of those cities to forcefully and unconstitutionally suppress descent. second, at your direction, department officials have down played the effects of systemic racism and abandoned the victims of police brutality, refused to hold abusive police departments accountable for their actions and expressed open hostility to the black lives matter movement. third, in coordination with the white house, the department has spread disinformation about voting fraught, failed to enforce voting rights laws and attempted to change the census rules to flaunt the plain text of the constitution and even defied court orders on this subject, all in the apparent attempt to assist the president's re-election. fourth, at the president's request, the department has amplified the president's conspiracy theories and shielded him from responsibility by blatantly misrepresenting the mueller report and failing to hold foreign actors accountable for their attacks on our elections, undermining both national security and the department's professional staff in the process. fifth, again and again, you personally have interfered with on going criminal investigations to protect the president and his allies from the consequences of their actions. when career investigators and prosecutors resisted these brazen, unprecedented actions, you replaced them with less qualified staff who appear to be singularly beholding to you. the message these actions send is clear. in this justice department the president's enemies will be punished and his friends will be protected no matter the cost, no matter the cost to liberty, no matter the cost to justice. finally, and perhaps most perniciously, the department has placed the president's political needs over the public health by challenging stay-at-home orders in the states hit hardest by the pandemic. the department's persistent efforts to gut the affordable care act will make recovery that much harder. these actions come at a price. real damage to our democratic norms, the erosion of the separation of powers and a loss of faith in the equal administration of justice. in the hands of president trump, a department of justice that adopts a dangerously expansive view of executive power and demonstrates a willingness to shield him from accountability represents a direct threat to the liberty and safety of the country. and we were warned. at your confirmation hearing professor neil king kof testified and i quote, public confidence in the rule of law depends on there being an attorney general who will not allow the president to do whatever he wants with the justice department. william barr's views of presidential power are so radically mistaken that he is simply the wrong man at the wrong time to be attorney general of the united states, closed quote. again, this failure of leadership comes at great cost. this administration has twisted the department of justice into a shadow of its former self, capable of serving most americans only after it has first served those in power. this committee has responsibility to protect americans from that kind of corruption, mr. barr. we have a responsibility to ensure that the justice department and its attorney general administer justice equally and fairly. and this is what has brought us to this hearing room today. we want to give you a chance to respond to our questions to these and other matters, and we hope and expect that you will do so in a clear and forthright manner. our members expect sincere answers today, and our country deserves no less. i now recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, for his opening statement. >> spying. that one word. that's why they're after you, mr. attorney general. 15 months ago, april 10, 2019 in a senate hearing you said, quote, i think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. spying on a political campaign is a big deal. it sure is. and since that day, since that day when you had the courage to state the truth they attacked you. they've been attacking you ever since, every day, every week for simply stating the truth that the obama/biden administration spied on the trump campaign. one year ago, fbi sent investigator posing as assistant to meet with trump aide in 2016. fbi sent a young lady to meet papadopoulos in 2016. they sent pretending to be someone else to meet a person associated with the trump campaign. you know what they call that? you know what they call that? spying. one month later, october 2016 they used the dossier to spy on carter page. the salacious, unverified dossier, jim comey's words, not mine. didn't tell the court that the clintons paid for it, that the guy who wrote it communicated to the justice department that he was, quote, disr desperate to stop trump from getting elected. guess what? there were 15 more lies that they told the court, 17 in total that are outlined by the inspector general, each and every one of them, in his 400-page report. guess what? chairman nadler refuses to allow mr. horowitz to come here and testify and answer our questions about the 17 lies the obama/biden administration told to the secret court. the obama/biden doj opened the investigation in july, used a secret agent lady to spy in august, lied to the fisa court in september. they did all this without any basis for launch the investigation to begin with. how do we know that? how do we know there was no basis? they told us. they didn't want to tell us. thanks to rick grenell who released the transcripts of their testimony, we now know there was no basis for them to start the investigation in the first place. sally yates, susan rice. here is what susan rice says, i don't recall intelligence i would consider evidence of a conspiracy. how about james clapper? i never saw any direct evidence that the trump campaign or someone in it was conspireing with the russians to metal with the election. say that again, i never saw evidence that the trump campaign was conspiring, and yet they investigate him. there was never a proper predicate. so why did they do it? there was no reason to do it. why did they do it? they told us that, too. peter strzok, august 2016 asked is trump going to win? what's his resnons this is peter strzok, the guy that rain the investigation. no, no he's not. we'll stop it. august peter strzok says we'll stop trump. september they spy on p papadopoul papadopoulos, october they use the fake dossier to lie to the court. guess what happens in november? guess what happens in november? november 8, 2016, 63 million american people get in their way. now everything changes. now the real focus is, wow, wait a minute, we didn't stop him. he won. now what do they have to do? they have to do the coverup. who do they have to go after? who is target number one in their coverup? the former head of the defense intelligence agency, the guy who is about to become national security adviser to the president of the united states, michael flynn. they can't have him hanging around because he'll figure it out. so they decide to go after michael flynn. three star general, served our country for over three decades. we know they went after him because they told us that, too. bill pre step, head of counter intelligence, the day they interview flynn, january 14, 2017, his notes say what? what's our goal? to get flynn to lie so we can prosecute him or to get him fired. think about what the obama/biden doj, what their administration did in the last month, the last month they were in power. january 4th, the agents investigating flynn want to drop the case. comey tells them no. january 5th, the now famous meeting in the oval office, all there plotting their strategy how to get flynn. january 6, comey goes up to trump tower, briefs president elect trump on the dossier they already know was false, just so they can brief the press that they leaked the dossier. january 4, the day they set up michael flynn in his interview. guess what else they did? guess what else they did between election day and inauguration day? guess what else they did? 38 people, 49 times unmasked michael flynn's name. comey, clapper, brennan, biden, 17 people at the treasury department unmasked michael flynn's name for goodness sake. of course, flynn resigns on february 13th. flynn resigns on february 13th, now the coverup is complete. flynn is gone. everything is fine they think until may 9th, 2017, when president trump fires jim comey. now they've got a problem again. the guy who was going to keep it all quiet, he's been fired. now how do they continue the coverup? real simple. jim comey leaks his memos with the express purpose of getting a special counsel to investigate something they already know is not true. and that's exactly what happened. we get two years, 19 lawyers, 48 witnesses, 2800 subpoenas, $30 million cost to the taxpayer and they come back with nothing, absolutely nothing. so all they got left is to attack the attorney general who had the courage to state the truth right from the get-go. the first time he testifies after he's confirmed, and you guys attack him every day, every week and now you filed articles of impeachment against him. it's ridiculous. he had the courage to do what no one else would do at the justice department. sally yates wouldn't call it spying. jeff sessions wouldn't do it. rod rosenstein wouldn't do it. chris wray sure as heck isn't going to do it. mr. attorney general, i want to thank you for having the courage to call it what it was, spying. thank you for having the courage to say we're going to get the politics out of the department of justice that was there in the previous administration and maybe, most importantly, and we'll talk about this on our side when questioning, i want to thank you for defending law enforcement, for pointing out what a crazy idea this defund the police policy, whatever you want to call it is, and standing up for the rule of law. frankly we have a video we want to show that gets right to this point. can we play that video, please? >> i want to be clear in how i characterize this. this is mostly a protest. it is, generally speaking, unruly. >> peaceful protesters. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protests. >> peaceful protesters. >> on behalf of myself, my children, the family of david dorn, we'd like to thank friends, neighbors, co-workers and a community for showing all the love and support for the loss we suffered from the tragic loss of my husband, david dorn. we'd also tliek than tk st. louis metropolitan police department for their hard work an perseverance for this investigation, as well as the -- office. he debt kated his life to city of st. louis retiring at rank of captain after 38 years from distinguishable service. during those years he's touched so many lives as a friend, mentor, co-worker and guardian. his life was senselessly taken from me, from us by an opportunist who had no records for human life or the law. this didn't have to happen, but it must have been god's plan for david. we need to come together as a community and do better. we need to teach our young people that life is very precious. we as a family are going to be taking some time to focus our attention on healing, which is very important as we move forward. we would like david's legacy to be remembered as a loving husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, friend, colleague and, mostly, a child of god. i want to thank you all for coming, and god bless you all. >> [ bleep ]. >> oh [ bleep ]. >> oh, yes. oh, yes. [ shouting ] . >> turn the sound down. [ shouting ] . >> well, i hope mr. jordan will never complain about the length of my opening statement. without objection i'm going to insert the committee's audio visual policy into the record of this hearing and note that the minority did not give the committee the 48-hour notice required by that policy. for that objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. i will now introduce today's witnesses. william barr has served as the attorney general of the united states since february 14th, 2019, having previously served in the same position from 1991 to 1993 under president george h.w. bush. he also served as deputy attorney general and assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel under the bush administration, was a member of the domestic policy staff under president reagan, served in the central intelligence agency and was a law clerk for the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circu circuit. in addition to his significant public service, he has extensive experience practicing law in the pry sat sector, received his degree from lol lum yeah and j.d. from george washington university school of law. we welcome the attorney general and thank him for participating today. if you'd please rise, i'll begin by swearing you in. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief, so help you god. let the record show the witness has responded in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. please note your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. accordingly i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. to help you stay within that time there's a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. mr. barr, you may begin. >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member jordan. i'm pleased to be here this morning. on behalf of the department of justice, i want to pay my respects to your colleague, congressman john lewis, an indomitable champion of civil rights and the rule of law. i think it's especially important to remember today that he pursued his cause passionately and successfully with unwavering commitment to non-violence. as i said in my confirmation hearing, the attorney general has a unique obligation. he holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. he must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and that criminal cases are handled even handedly based on the law and the facts and without regard to political or personal considerations. i can tell you that i've handled criminal matters that have come to me for decision in this way. the president has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. on the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call i think is right, and that is precisely what i've done. indeed it's precisely because i feel complete freedom to do what i think is right that induced me to serve once again as attorney general. as you just said, mr. chairman, i served as attorney general under president george h.w. bush, and after that i spent many years in the corporate world. i'm almost 70 years old -- i was almost 70 years old and slipping happily into retirement. i had nothing to prove and no desire to return to government. i had no prior relationship with president trump. let me turn briefly to the several pressing issues of the day. the horrible killing of george floyd in minneapolis understandably jarred the whole country and forced us to reflect on longstanding issues in the nation. those issues obviously relate to the relationship between law enforcement and the african-american community. given our history, it's understandable that among black americans there's some ambivalence and often distrust toward the police. until the last 50 years ago or so our laws and institutions were explicitry racist, explicitly discriminatory. it was not until the '60s that the civil rights movement finally succeeded in tearing down to jim crow ediface. the work of civil rights has rightly focused on reforming institutions to ensure they better conform to our laws and aspirations. that work, it's important to acknowledge, has been increasingly successful. police forces today are far more diverse than they've ever been and there are both more black police chiefs and more black officers in the ranks. although the death of george floyd at the hands of the police was a shocking event, the fact is that these events are fortunately quite rare. according to statistics compiled by "the washington post" the number of unarmed black men killed by police so far this year is eight. the number of unarmed white men killed by police over the same period of time is 11. the overall numbers of police shootings have been decreasing. nevertheless, every instance of excessive force is unacceptable and must be addressed appropriately through the legal process, as is happening now in minneapolis. apart from the numbers, i think these events strike a deep cord in the black community because they are perceived as manifestations of a deeper lingering concern that encounters with police blacks will not be treated even handedly. they will not be given the benefit of the doubt, they'll be treated with greater suspicion. senator tim scott has recounted the number of times he's been unjustifiably pulled over on capitol hill. as one prominent black professional in washington said, african-americans often feel treated as suspects first and sus citizens second. i think these concerns are legitimate. at the same time, i think it would be an oversimplification as treating the problem as rooted in some deep seeded racism generally infecting our police departments. it seems more likely the problem stems from a complex mix of factors which can be addressed with focused attention over time. we in law enforcement must be conscious of the concerns and ensure that we do not have two systems of justice. unfortunately some have chosen to respond to george floyd's death in a far less productive way, by demonizing the police, promoting slogans like all cops are bastard and making proposals to defund the police. the demonization is not only unfair and inconsistent with principles that all people should be treated as individuals, but gravely injurious to inner cities. when communities turn on police, officers become more risk averse and crime rates soar. unfortunately we're see that now in many of our cities. the threat to black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct. the leading cause of death for young black males is homicide. every year approximately 7,500 black americans are victims of homicide. the vast majority of them, around 90% are killed by other blacks, mainly by gunfire. each of these lives matter. it is for this reason that in selected cities where there has been an upsurge in violent crime we are stepping up and bolstering the activities of our joint anti-crime task forces. finally, i want to address a different breakdown in the rule of law that we've witnessed over the past two months. in the wake of george floyd's death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak havoc and destruction on innocent victims. the current situation in portland is a telling example. every night for the past two months, hundreds of rioters have laid siege to the federal courthouse and other nearby federal property. the rioters have come equipped for fight, armed with powerful sling shots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles and explosive devices. inside the courthouse a relatively number of federal law enforcement personnel charged with the defeinitive mission, t protect the courthouse. what unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called protests. it is by any objective measure an assault on the government of the united states. as elected officials of the federal government, every member of this committee, regardless of your political views or your feelings about the trump administration should condemn violence against federal officers and the destruction of federal property. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your listeni listi areas of concern in your opening statement. i'm looking forward to addressing them all. >> thank you for your testimony. we will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. i'll recognize myself for five minutes. on july 22nd, you joined the president as he announced the expansion of operation legend, an initiative -- let me start that again. on july 22nd, you joined the president as he announced the expansion of operation legend, an initiative to combat violent crime in kansas city with approximately $61 million in doj grants. i am confused, however, as to the purpose of launching operation legend at this moment in time. in december of last year you announced that the department would divert over $70 million in grants to seven u.s. cities under an initiative called operation relentless pursuit, correct? >> that's right. >> operation relentless pursuit targeted a families of cities, albuquerque, baltimore and kansas city, correct? >> correct. >> at the same july 22nd press conference, you initially claimed that over 200 arrests had been made under operation legend, correct? >> correct. >> but you misspoke. >> correct. >> the u.s. attorney's office for the western district of missouri later confirmed only a single arrest had been made under the auspices of operation legend, correct? >> i don't know. >> and 199 other arrests were made under relentless pursuit or other programs. that was correct. i think you can be forgiven for being confused. operation legend appears to be little more than repackaging of existing operations in these cities. why all the drama? why join the president and the white house to announce a bold new operation that appears to be either bold or new? understandably americans are very suspicious of your motives. there are those that believe you're sending federal law enforcement into these cities not to combat violent crime but help with the president's re-election efforts. the president has made clear he wants conflict between protesters and police between a central theme of his campaign. let me ask you directly, mr. barr. yes or no. did you rebrand existing projects under -- in order to assist the president in an election year? >> i wouldn't call it -- >> mr. attorney general, would you agree with me at least on principle, that it's improper for the department of justice to divert resources and law enforcement personnel in an effort to assist in the president's re-election campaign. >> in the fall we did inaugurate an anti crime initiative because we were concerned about increasing violent crime in a number of cities. we called that relentless pursuit. unfortunately covid intervened and our agents who were detained for these assignments could not perform the operation. so the operation was squelched by covid. we couldn't complete or make much progress on relentless pursuit. however, in the intervening time, we saw violent crime continuing to rise, and a lot of that was triggered by the events after the death of george floyd. so we did reboot the program after covid started breaking and we could commit the law enforcement resources to actually accomplish the mission which is to reduce violent crime. now, i regret that covid interrupted our law enforcement activities, but it didn't obviate the fact there's serious violent crimes in these cities. these police departments and mayors have been asking us for help. we have put in additional federal agents and investigators to help deal with it. >> yes or no. have you discussed the president's re-election campaign with the president or with any white house official or any surrogate of the president? >> i'm not going to get into my discussions with the president. >> have you discussed that topic with him? yes or no. >> not in relation to this program. >> i didn't ask that. i asked if you discussed that -- >> i'm a member of the cabinet and there's an election going on. obviously the topic comes up. >> so yes. >> the topic comes up in cabinet meetings and other things. it shouldn't be a surprise that the topic -- >> i didn't say i was surprised. i asked if you had done that. as part of those conversations with the president or his people about the re-election campaign, have you ever discussed the current or future deployment of federal law enforcement? >> in connection with what? >> in connection with what you just said. in connection with your discussions with the president or with other people around him of his re-election campaign, have you discussed the current or future deployment of federal law enforcement? >> as i say, i'm not going to get into my discussions with the president. but i've made it clear that i would like to pick the cities based on law enforcement need and based on neutral criteria. >> you can't tell me whether or not -- >> i'm not going to discuss what i discussed with the president. >> can you commit today that the department will not use federal law enforcement as a prop in the president's re-election campaign? i want to close with this thought. out can't hide behind legal fictions this time, mr. barr. it's all out in the open where the people can see what you're doing. the president wants footage for his campaign ads. you appear to be serving it up to him as ordered. in most of these cities, the protests had begun to wind down before you marched in and confronted the protesters. the protesters aren't mobs. they are mothers and veterans and mayors. in this moment real leadership would entail deescalation, collaboration and looking for ways to peaceably resolve our differences. instead you use pepper spray on american citizens. you did it here in washington. you did it at lafayette square, expanded to portland and now you're projecting fear and violence nationwide in pursuit of obvious political objectives. shame on you, mr. barr. shame on you. my time has expired. for what purpose does mr. jordan seek recognition. >> seek recognition? my time has expired. for what purpose does mr. johnson seek recognition? >> questions for the witness and i will yield the floor to him to respond. >> mr. chairman, you've conflated two different things. the effort, like legend, is to deal with violent crime, crime that's committed on the streets of the city. again, predatory violence like murder, shootings, which are soaring in some cities right now. that does not involve encountering protesters, as you refer to it. civil disturbance is a different set of issues. and, uh, i just reject the idea that the department has flooded anywhere and attempted to suppress demonstrators. we make a clear distinction between demonstrators -- >> the facts speak for themselves. >> and, you know, the fact of the matter is, if you take portland, portland, the courthouse is under attack. the federal resources are inside the perimeter around the courthouse, defending it from almost two months of daily attacks where people march to the court, try to gain entrance and have set fires, thrown things, used explosives, and injured police, including just this past weekend perhaps permanently blinding three federal officers with lasers. we are on the defense. we're not out looking for trouble. and if the state and the city would provide law enforcement services that other jurisdictions do, we would have no need to have additional marshals in the courthouse. >> on behalf of hundreds of millions of americans, thank you for that clarification and thank you for being here and thank you for your service today and your willingness to do this in very challenging times, mr. attorney general, we're very appreciative. it's not an easy job but it's a vitally important one. i appreciate what you said in your opening statement, the attorney general has a unique obligation. he holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. we appreciate that so much. the democrats have said this morning and continue to say in the media under your leadership the justice department has become highly politicized. why is that a totally unfounded allegation? >> because actually what i'm trying to do is restore the rule of law and the rule of law is in essence that we have one rule for everybody. if you apply one rule to a, the same rule applies to b. and i felt we didn't have that previously at the department. we had strayed. and, uh, i would just ask people, uh, i'm supposedly punishing the president's enemies and helping his friends. what enemies have i indicted? could you i wouldn't to opoint indictment that you feel is unmerited, that you feel violates the rule of law? one indictment. now, you say i help the president's friends. the cases that are cited, the stone case and the flynn case, are both cases where i determined, uh, that some intervention was necessary to rectify the rule of law, to make sure people are treated the same. i said -- stone was prosecuted under me and i said all along i thought that was a righteous prosecution, i thought he should go to jail and i thought the judge's sentence was correct. but the line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice anyone else in a similar position had ever served. and this is a 67-year-old man, first time offender, no violence. and they were trying to put him in jail for seven to nine years. and i wasn't going to advocate that, because that is not the rule of law. i agree the president's friends don't deserve special breaks. but they also don't deserve to be treated more harshly than other people and sometimes that's a difficult decision to make, especially when you know you're going to be castigated for it, but that is what the rule of law is and that's what fairness to the individual ultimately comes to, being willing to do what's fair to the individual. >> amen. and thank you for that. and by contrast what the previous doj did under the previous administration was politicize law enforcement. the obama/biden administration sabotaged the trump transition, they unmasked members of the trump campaign, they employed aggressive tactics on campaign officials, senior fbi official we all know on this committee carried over from the obama administration, carried on their abuses into the trump administration and then to the whole impeachment scam and all the rest. let me ask you just one question because my time is running out. president obama's attorney general eric holder famously referred to himself as president obama's wing man. he said in an interview, quote, i'm still enjoying what i'm doing, there's still work to be done. i'm still the president's wing man so i'm there with my boy. that's what he said, famously. is it the duty of the attorney general to be the president's wing man? >> no. i've already described what i think the duty of the attorney general is. >> and in your office, you are then free to act independently of the president, isn't that true? >> that is true, particularly on criminal cases, it's required. >> and that's exactly what he has asked you to do; isn't that right? >> yes. >> i have no further questions, i yield back. >> it is well you have no further questions, your time has expired. ms. lofgren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, it's obvious what is [ inaudible ] from the [ inaudible ] remarks, it's clear that the president's playbook is divert attention from his catastrophic failure in dealing with the covid-19 situation. in canada, our neighbor to the north, in europe, the virus has been reduced to such a level that people can safely go out and not worry about being infected. but here in the united states, millions of americans have been infected, tens of thousands are dying, and the president needs to divert from that failure. and the playbook is to create the impression that there is violence, that he must send in federal troops and that the american people should be afraid of other americans and trust the president because he's going to send in [ inaudible ] troops to american cities and that's how he hopes to win the election. you know, it's one thing to fight crime [ inaudible ] task forces. that involves the cooperation of state and local officials. but the governor of oregon and the mayor of portland has asked that the federal troops leave because the reaction has actually been in reverse proportion. people are showing up because the troops are there. and i would like to say that so many of them, i would say most of them, are nonviolent. we've all heard about the wall of moms. the wall of moms who show up to make sure that people are safe. and here is what they say. they say they've been teargassed night after night, left vomiting, that they have been shot at with rubber beanbags, pepper spray. this brutality has created even more demonstrators. i would like to ask you this. when the president [ inaudible ] his executive order they indicated your department should prioritize investigations. has your department started any investigations pursuant to the executive order that the president [ inaudible ]? >> which executive order, congresswoman? >> the executive order that asks for the deployment of troops to protect the monuments and the federal facilities. >> yes. >> on june 26. >> yeah, i wouldn't say it was troops, but the -- we have initiated investigations, yes. we've made arrests of people who -- >> let me ask -- >> people who have been rioting and taken down statues. i think your characterization of portland is completely false. >> i would like to -- we can get into that, but i would like to ask you a question about surveillance, if i may. we have reports that [ inaudible ] known as stingrays or dirt boxes are being used to collect phone call location and even content of phone calls. [ inaudible ] are being used that [ inaudible ] facial recognition or cellphone [ inaudible ] technology and that there is bulk collection of internet browsing histories. what specific authority is the department using for these surveillance tools? >> i really can't speak to those instances, if they in fact occurred. i'm glad to go and try to determine what you're talking about. >> actually i'm asking about authority, not the [ inaudible ]. >> you know, i think most of our cyber activities are conducted by the fbi under their law enforcement powers to detect and prevent crime, federal crime. >> i think the american public should know that this surveillance technique isn't just about the people, you know, in front of the courthouse. when a husband and wife call each other and one of the spouses has a cellphone that's within range of one of these technologies, not only the location but the actual content of that couple's conversation can be scooped up using this technology. so this really isn't just about the demonstrators. this is about the privacy of all americans and it's all being violated for the president's political purposes of trying to create a scene, create a reason, divert attention from the covid failings. i think it's really [ inaudible ] unfortunate and disservice to the american people. mr. chairman, my time has fired. >> point of order. >> the