by
M.
Richard Maxson
Yesterday,
Attorney General William P. Barr, testified in front of the House
Judiciary Committee. The Democrats on the committee were reading to
rake him over the coals and discredit him. It did not work. The truth
made fools of these members and common sense and lawful testimony by
Barr cemented their attempts as political hogwash. Here is the
attorney Generals opening statement laying out the true situation.
Written
Statement of
William P. Barr Attorney General
Committee on the
Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
July 28, 2020
Chairman
Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, Members of the Committee, I am pleased
to be here this morning. I accepted an invitation to testify before
this Committee in late March, but it was postponed as a result of the
pandemic that continues to pose challenges to us all. I know some
other hearings this week have been postponed to honor your late
colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia. On behalf of the
Department of Justice, I want to pay my respects to Congressman
Lewis, an indomitable champion of civil rights and the rule of law. I
think it is especially important to remember today that he pursued
his cause passionately and successfully with an unwavering commitment
to nonviolence.
We
are in a time when the political discourse in Washington often
reflects the politically divided nation in which we live, and too
often drives that divide even deeper. Political rhetoric is inherent
in our democratic system, and politics is to be expected by
politicians, especially in an election year. While that may be
appropriate here on Capitol Hill or on cable news, it is not
acceptable at the Department of Justice. At the Department, decisions
must be made with no regard to political pressure—pressure from
either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, or from the media or mobs.
Ever
since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to
get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus
“Russiagate” scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee
have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am
simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases
according to his instructions. Judging from the letter inviting me to
this hearing, that appears to be your agenda today. So let me turn to
that first.
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
evenhandedly, based on the law and the facts, and without regard to
political or personal considerations. I can tell you that I have
handled criminal matters that have come to me for decision in this
way. 2 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. That is precisely what I have done.
From
my experience, the President has played a role properly and
traditionally played by Presidents. Like his predecessors, President
Trump and his National Security Council have appropriately weighed in
on law-
enforcement decisions that directly implicate national
security or foreign policy, because those decisions necessarily
involve considerations that transcend typical prosecutorial factors.
Moreover, when some noteworthy event occurs that potentially has
legal ramifications – such as leaks of classified information,
potential civil rights abuses by police, or illegal price fixing or
gouging – the President has occasionally, and appropriately,
confirmed that the Department is aware of the matter. But the
handling of the matter and my decisions on criminal matters have been
left to my independent judgment, based on the law and fact, without
any direction or interference from the White House or anyone outside
the Department.
Indeed,
it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is
right that induced me serve once again as Attorney General. As you
know, I served as Attorney General under President George H. W. Bush.
After that, I spent many years in the corporate world. I was almost
70 years old, slipping happily into retirement as I enjoyed my
grandchildren. I had nothing to prove and had no desire to return to
government. I had no prior relationship with President Trump.
But
as an outsider I became deeply troubled by what I perceived as the
increasing use of the criminal justice process as a political weapon
and the emergence of two separate standards of justice. The
Department had been drawn into the political maelstrom and was being
buffeted on all sides. When asked to consider returning, I did so
because I revere the Department and believed my independence would
allow me to help steer her back to her core mission of applying one
standard of justice for everyone and enforcing the law even-handedly,
without partisan considerations. Since returning to the Department, I
have done precisely that. My decisions on criminal matters before the
Department have been my own, and they have been made because I
believed they were right under the law and principles of justice.
Let
me turn briefly to 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 our
nation. Those issues obviously relate to the relationship between law
enforcement and the African-American community.
Given
our history it is understandable that, among black Americans, there
is at least some ambivalence, and often distrust, toward the police.
Until just the last 50 years or so, our laws and institutions were
explicitly discriminatory. It was not until the 60’s that the Civil
Rights movement finally succeeded in tearing down the Jim Crow
edifice. Our laws finally came to formally embody the guarantee of
equal protection. Since then, the work of securing civil rights has
rightly focused on reforming our institutions to ensure they better
conform to our laws and aspirations.
That
work, it is important to acknowledge, has been increasingly
successful. Police forces today are far more diverse than ever
before; there are both more black police chiefs and more black
officers in the ranks. Although the death of George Floyd – an
unarmed black man – at the hands of the police was a shocking
event, the fact is that such 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 8. The
number of unarmed white men killed by police over the same time
period is 11. Some unarmed suspects, moreover, were physically
attacking officers or threatening others at the time they were shot.
And the overall number of police shootings has been decreasing.
Nevertheless, every instance of excessive force is unacceptable and
must be addressed, as is happening now in Minneapolis.
Apart
from their numbers, I think these events strike a deep chord in the
black community because they are perceived as manifestation of the
deeper, lingering concern that, in encounters with police, blacks
will not be treated even-handedly; they will not be given the benefit
of the doubt; they will be treated with greater suspicion than a
white person would be in the same circumstances. Senator Tim Scott
has recounted the numerous times he has been unjustifiably pulled
over on Capitol Hill. As one prominent black professional in
Washington said to me, African Americans often feel “treated as
suspects first and citizens second.” I think these concerns are
legitimate.
At
the same time, I think it would be an oversimplification to treat the
problem as rooted in some deep-seated racism generally infecting our
police departments. It seems far more likely that 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 different systems of
justice. In a pluralistic society like ours, composed of many races
and ethnicities, we all must strive not to reduce each other to
stereotypes or to allow those stereotypes to govern our treatment of
our fellow citizens. Rather, we have a basic and overriding
obligation to treat each other as individuals, created equal and
entitled to the benefit of the doubt rather than assumptions based on
skin color.
A re-commitment to that principle, particularly by those entrusted with
the weighty responsibilities of law enforcement, would be a worthy
response to George Floyd’s death. It would ensure that good comes
out of bad. The Justice Department will honor that commitment. Among
other steps, we are implementing the President’s Executive Order,
which outlines a number of measures to propel continued
professionalization of the police, including setting clear standards
for appropriate use of force.
Unfortunately,
some have chosen to respond to George Floyd’s death in a far less
productive way – by demonizing the police, promoting slogans like
ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards), and making grossly irresponsible
proposals to defund the police. The demonization of police is not
only unfair and inconsistent with the principle that all people
should be treated as individuals, but gravely injurious to our inner
city communities. There is no harder job in America today than being
a police officer. When officers respond to an emergency, whether a
catastrophe like 9/11 or an everyday crime, they do not set out to
protect white people or black people. They risk and sometimes give
their lives to protect and serve all people, and all people owe them
thanks.
When
a community turns on and pillories its own police, officers naturally
become more risk averse and crime rates soar. Unfortunately, we are
seeing that now in many of our major cities. This is a critical
problem that exists apart from disagreements on other issues. 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, and the vast majority
of them – around 90 percent – are killed by other blacks, mainly
by gunfire. Each of those lives matter.
And
it is not just that crime snuffs out lives. Crime snuffs out
opportunity. Children cannot thrive in playgrounds and schools
dominated by gangs and drug pushers. Businesses do not locate in
unsafe neighborhoods. When the police are attacked, when they are
defunded, when they are driven out of urban communities, it is black
lives that will suffer most from their absence.
It
is for that reason that, in select 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, which have been
successful in the past. In those cities, we are adding experienced
investigators, firearms and ballistics analysts, and experts at
apprehending violent fugitives. We are also offering funding to
support more police who can be assigned to these anti-crime task
forces. To be clear, this initiative has nothing to do with the
problem of violent mob rioting that I will discuss in a moment; it is
instead designed to help state and local law enforcement to meet
their basic responsibility to solve crimes and keep their communities
safe.
Finally,
I want to address a different breakdown in the rule of law that we
have witnessed over the past two months. In the wake of George
Floyd’s death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked
legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on
innocent victims. The current situation in Portland is a telling
example. Every night for the past two months, a mob of hundreds of
rioters has laid siege to the federal courthouse and other nearby
federal property. The rioters arrive equipped for a fight, armed with
powerful slingshots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles, and
explosive devices. Inside the courthouse are a relatively small
number of federal law enforcement personnel charged with a defensive
mission: to protect the courthouse, home to Article III federal
judges, from being overrun and destroyed.
What
unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a
protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the
Government of the United States. In recent nights, rioters have
barricaded the front door of the courthouse, pried plywood off the
windows with crowbars, and thrown commercial-grade fireworks into the
building in an apparent attempt to burn it down with federal
personnel inside. The rioters have started fires outside the
building, and then systematically attacked federal law enforcement
officers who attempt to put them out—for example, by pelting the
officers with rocks, frozen water bottles, cans of food, and balloons
filled with fecal matter. A recent video showed a mob
enthusiastically beating a Deputy U.S. Marshal who was trying to
protect the courthouse – a property of the United States government
funded by this Congress – from further destruction. A number of
federal officers have been injured, including one severely burned by
a mortar-style firework and three who have suffered serious eye
injuries and may be permanently blind.
Largely
absent from these scenes of destruction are even superficial attempts
by the rioters to connect their actions to George Floyd’s death or
any legitimate call for reform. Nor could such brazen acts of
lawlessness plausibly be justified by a concern that police officers
in Minnesota or elsewhere defied the law.
Remarkably,
the response from many in the media and local elected offices to this
organized assault has been to blame the federal government. To state
what should be obvious, peaceful protesters do not throw explosives
into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch
fecal matter at federal officers. Such acts are in fact federal
crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.
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 destruction of federal property. So should state
and local leaders who have a responsibility to keep their communities
safe. To tacitly condone destruction and anarchy is to abandon the
basic rule-of-law principles that should unite us even in a
politically divisive time. At the very least, we should all be able
to agree that there is no place in this country for armed mobs that
seek to establish autonomous zones beyond government control, or tear
down statues and monuments that law-abiding communities chose to
erect, or to destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent
business owners. The most basic responsibility of government is to
ensure the rule of law, so that people can live their lives safely
and without fear. The Justice Department will continue working to
meet that solemn responsibility.
