[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONFRONTING VIOLENT WHITE SUPREMACY
(PART V): EXAMINING THE RISE
OF MILITIA EXTREMISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 26, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-688 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Dave Rapallo, Staff Director
Candyce Phoenix, Subcommittee Staff Director
Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Pete Sessions, Texas, Ranking
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Minority Member
Robin Kelly, Illinois Jim Jordan, Ohio
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Andy Biggs, Arizona
Columbia Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Scott Franklin, Florida
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Byron Donalds, Florida
Danny K. Davis, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 26, 2021..................................... 1
Witnesses
Mary McCord, Legal Director, Institute for Constitutional
Advocacy and ProtectionGeorgetown University
Oral Statement................................................... 7
The Honorable Gurbir Grewal, New Jersey Attorney General
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Peter Simi, Associate Professor of Sociology, Chapman University
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Michael Gonzalez, Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
Documents entered during the hearing by Unanimous Consent (UC),
and other documents for this hearing, including Questions for
the Record (QFR's) are listed below.
* UC - Statement from the Attorney General of Michigan;
submitted by Chairman Raskin.
* UC - Statement from the Attorney General of Oregon; submitted
by Chairman Raskin.
* UC - Statement from the Attorney General of Virginia;
submitted by Chairman Raskin.
* UC - Article, ``Nevada County GOP Canceled Meeting Amid Fear
of Proud Boy Insurgency''; submitted by Chairman Raskin.
* UC - Testimony by the Southern Poverty Law Center; submitted
by Chairman Raskin.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
CONFRONTING VIOLENT WHITE SUPREMACY
(PART V): EXAMINING THE RISE
OF MILITIA EXTREMISM
----------
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Jamie Raskin (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Raskin, Maloney, Wasserman
Schultz, Kelly, Pressley, Norton, Tlaib, Sessions, Jordan,
Biggs, Mace, Franklin, and Donalds.
Also present: Representative Slotkin.
Mr. Raskin. The subcommittee will come to order.
The chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
Without objection, the distinguished gentlewoman from
Michigan, Ms. Slotkin, shall be permitted to join the hearing
and be recognized for the purpose of questioning witnesses
today. And welcome to you, Congresswoman Slotkin.
I want to say a word before we begin about these terrible
shootings in San Jose, which have apparently cost the lives of
eight people already. So, our thoughts are with the people of
San Jose, and we hope that there will be no further loss of
life, obviously.
We are here today in the Oversight Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties to talk about the threat of violent
right-wing militia groups, and I want to note that this is the
fifth hearing in our subcommittee's ongoing investigation of
the problem of violent white supremacy. These hearings began
not after the insurrection on January 6. They began in May
2019. That was when we first tried to define the problem. Then
we had a hearing on June 4 of 2019 addressing the Federal
response and plans to deal with the problem of domestic
extremism, which the Department of Homeland Security under
Donald Trump defined as the No. 1 security threat to the people
of the United States. We had a hearing then on September 20 of
2019 on the transnational nature of the threat of violent white
supremacists and neofascist activity, and the threats that they
pose to national security. And then on September 29 of 2020, we
looked at the question of white supremacists' infiltration of
law enforcement and the military.
Last month, ``60 Minutes'' did a very powerful and cogent
segment on the Oath Keepers militia and their specific
involvement in organizing and participating in the January 6
violent insurrection against the U.S. Government. And I would
like to play some clips from that segment, if the clerk could
go ahead and play the video, to give you a vivid sense of the
way that militia groups are now integral to extreme right-wing
violence in America.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Raskin. So, those were just some excerpts from the
report. I strongly encourage the members of the committee to
watch the entire ``60 Minutes'' segment.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement before
going to the ranking member.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today. We
have a very distinguished panel of experts, and we are thrilled
to have you here. I also want to thank Chairwoman Maloney for
lending your support and for joining this hearing today. As I
noted earlier, the hearing is part of our subcommittee's
ongoing work to expose the dangers of white supremacist
violence to the American people and our national security, and
also to explore the best legislative efforts to counter
domestic violent extremism, which has been identified as the
key security threat to the American people today from
terrorism.
On January 6, armed domestic extremists invaded the Capitol
and laid siege to the Congress to overthrow our election and
our constitutional order. They repeatedly threatened to hang
Vice President Mike Pence and to kill Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
They caused five deaths, and they injured more than 140 of our
police officers, who, among other things, lost fingers, lost an
eye, suffered a heart attack, and endured traumatic brain
injuries, as well as other physical and mental traumas.
The insurrectionists violently disrupted the peaceful
transfer of power in our country and threatened to disrupt and
derail our constitutional order. The insurrection should have
been a wakeup call to everyone who had spent years minimizing
and whitewashing the dangers of far-right violence in America.
To be clear, the people who stormed the Capitol were not
patriots. They were not tourists. They were domestic terrorists
and insurrectionists who got people killed and injured that
day. If January 6 was a tourist visit, then the Civil War was a
nature hike.
In this hearing, we are going to focus a spotlight on the
organized paramilitary groups, such as the Oath Keepers and the
Three Percenters, that helped to plan the violence that was at
the center of the insurrection and lent military-grade tactical
knowledge and strategies to the mob violence that engulfed us
in Congress. Both of these groups, the Oath Keepers and Three
Percenters, are part of the expanding network of militia
violent extremists referred to in Federal law enforcement as
MVEs, militia violent extremists, that have become the
nationwide organizational backbone of far-right violent
extremism. In a March 2021 report, the director of National
Intelligence identified MVEs as one of the most lethal domestic
terror threats facing America and warned that they would,
``take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the
overthrow of our government.''
Militia-based violent extremists established themselves as
the key force in the far-right extremist coalition well before
January 6. The same militia groups that later scaled the walls
of the Capitol spent the last year organizing opposition to
public health measures designed to curb the spread of COVID-19.
Their armed demonstrations resulted in multiple hostile
takeovers of state capitals. Lawless militia extremists even
plotted the kidnapping and murder of Governor Gretchen Whitmer
in Michigan. As I said at the impeachment trial of Donald
Trump, this Michigan conspiracy was a dress rehearsal and a dry
run for the January 6 insurrection against Congress. The
militia groups like to depict themselves as part of a so-called
patriot movement standing up to Federal tyranny. They often
assert that they are not racist and can point to the fact that
the FBI and DHS categorize militia extremists separately from
white supremacists, but this artificial division totally
ignores both the history and the law.
The militia movement arose out of the vigilante gangs of
the Jim Crow South and coalesced into a Christian patriot
movement that fused anti-government activism with old-fashioned
racist conspiracy theories. Also, it should be clear that these
militias have no grounding in the U.S. Constitution. The
Constitution refers to a well-regulated militia in the Second
Amendment, which the Court has defined as a militia that is
authorized and regulated by state governments. Since 1886, it
has been clear that the Second Amendment does not protect
private militias, but only those that are regulated and
organized by the government, and every state today has a
militia which we call the National Guard. And Justice Scalia
echoed this view in his opinion in District of Columbia v.
Heller.
Historian Kathleen Belew, a witness at one of our prior
hearings on violent white supremacy, wrote that the growth of
the modern private militia movement in the 1990's was ``framed
by the same worldview, logic, and symbols that had long
structured white power activism and violence.'' She has also
observed that it is a mistake to draw too many fine ideological
distinctions among different factions of far-right extremists
instead of treating them all as part of a broader racist
political movement and social movement. We saw that racist
social movement in action this summer when militia groups and
white supremacists acted together to assault activists at
racial justice protests. Militias made at least 55 different
appearances at racial justice rallies last year, illegitimately
claiming the authority to patrol American streets. Their
vigilantism sometimes turned deadly and then was blamed on
Black Lives Matter, as we saw in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where 17-
year-old self-proclaimed militia member, Kyle Rittenhouse,
traveled from Illinois with an assault weapon and killed two
protesters and grievously wounded another.
The case of Mr. Rittenhouse also exposes the alarming
interaction between militia extremists and law enforcement in
some places. Kenosha police reportedly told Rittenhouse and his
fellow militiamen that they appreciated their presence, even
though they were all heavily armed and flagrantly violating a
curfew order. Elsewhere in the country, police have also
occasionally acquiesced to vigilante activity by these private
militias. Recruitment of law enforcement is a key strategic
objective of major militias, like the Oath Keepers and the
Three Percenters. Leaked data from the Oath Keepers shockingly
suggest that two-thirds of its members are retired, or active
duty even, law enforcement.
This morning, I sent a letter to Secretary Mayorkas seeking
information about DHS' strategy to combat militia extremism
today, but we also need to examine structural reforms more
seriously, including whether the overly complex taxonomies of
far-right extremism undermine our ability to respond to the
broad movement of vigilantes who have organized to violently
oppose our constitutional democracy. We have also spoken to
several state attorneys general, who emphasized that there is
not enough Federal support for coordinating regional responses
to militia extremism or sharing information about potential
threats to public security.
The so-called patriots who stormed the Capitol are domestic
extremists, whose paramilitary activities are not protected by
any part of the Constitution of the United States. We need a
coherent strategy that provides state law enforcement with
adequate resources to coordinate regional responses to this
threat and appropriately addresses the sweeping dangers of this
organized paramilitary movement against American democracy.
I hope today will improve our understanding of militia
extremism and its place in the overall movement of violent
white supremacy. The hearing should also yield information on
how we can work together to improve our national response to
better defend democratic institutions in the country.
Before we move on, without objection, I will enter into the
record statements from the attorneys general of Michigan,
Virginia, and Oregon. All of them are calling for additional
Federal resources to address the threat.
Mr. Raskin. And with that, I will now recognize my friend,
the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Sessions, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Sessions. Chairman, thank you very much, and to each of
our witnesses that will be appearing today, we appreciate not
only your time, but also your academic credentialing that
brought you to this table, and also your gathering of the
opening statement.
Mr. Chairman, it looks like today we are realizing that
Black Lives Matter and Antifa are not the only sources of
political violence in this country. Political violence has
expressed itself in our streets for a number of years now. It
has expressed itself perhaps out of frustration or perhaps
because there was a recognition of a larger political angle
that would be taken. That political angle is disturbing to me.
It is disturbing to each Member of Congress. It is disturbing
as we hear that many times it is not just the law that is being
attacked, but it is law enforcement. It is not just the laws
and law enforcement, it actually is government.
We as a country must have, from top to bottom, not just the
President the United States, but we as Members of Congress,
people who have the ability to see violence and people who have
the opportunity to see the carnage that takes place in our
cities as dangerous to America. Being a part of this, whether
you are in Black Lives Matter or Antifa, whether you are in
Portland, Oregon or Minnesota, or whether you are in the United
States Capitol, this is a problem to our country. Chaos is not
an answer, but rather an understanding about rule of law, the
rule of law enforcement, and the rule that we must have a
stable government is the basis of why we are here today.
It is my hope that we will include, and I know this is the
fifth hearing, but that we will include lots of information
that specifically relates to the opportunity to understand each
of these forms of terrorism, each of these forms of violence,
and each of these forms of what I think many times is political
expression. As you know, political expression is specifically
allowed in our Constitution and by our Constitution, but
violence should find no safe harbor in any law or the things
that we do. And, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that until we
get to the point, in my opinion, where each of us come
together, not just as Members of Congress, not just as attorney
generals, not just as law enforcement, but until we come
together and decide that the chaotic nature in which we are
treating this in a political sense must be solved.
As you know, my father served as the fourth director for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and yet many times I see
where our law enforcement officials are silent except in what
might be a political basis. I am not suggesting they have been
politicized. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong
with this, except that I believe that law enforcement needs to
take the responsibility for changes that would be made within
law enforcement from a professional basis as opposed to Members
of Congress or city councils deciding that they are going to
make judgments about law enforcement. We need Members of
Congress who will stand up and denounce violence across the
board. We need Members of Congress who will stand up and
represent people, but not try and inflict anything other than a
positive policy that would bring us together.
I am disappointed to see and to hear about the shooting,
once again, that took place in California. And while I know
little about it, I will tell you that it was a person who broke
the law. He was a person who violated other people's rights. I
don't know whether it was Hispanics. I don't know if it was
African Americans. I don't know if it might be anyone else.
What I do know is that we have a country that has found itself
in a violent circumstance, and we all need to gather together.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I have tried and you have tried to
work toward the middle, toward the middle where we could talk
to each other, where we could have conversations with each
other that would be about healing our Nation.
And so it is my hope that we will use this hearing today to
instructively look at what there is enough evidence to believe,
that there might be some of these violent groups, and there may
be some people that are in law enforcement and perhaps in the
military, but that we need to include looking not just at this
event, but Antifa and Black Lives Matter, because the violence
that has taken place, whether it is New Jersey, whether it is
Portland, Oregon, or whether it is our beautiful hometowns, we
need to get a handle on this and to understand the basis of
solving our problems.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for not only repeatedly
working with me and asking my opinion, but for trying to work
to the middle. And I would ask that each of our members today
listen very carefully as we have a very distinguished gentleman
from New Jersey who cares very much about his state and wants
to have the very best, and that we will find a way to rally
around against violence, and extremism, not just aiming at one
particular area.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time, and I welcome our
witnesses.
Mr. Raskin. And I want to thank the ranking member for his
thoughtful opening statement. We have also been joined by the
chair of the Oversight Committee, Chairwoman Maloney. We are
very grateful for your continuing support of our subcommittee
and for the work that you have done leading the investigation
into the violent insurrection of January 6. I will now
recognize you, Madam Chair, for opening remarks.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you so much, Chairman Raskin, and all
of my colleagues for your leadership in bringing in this
hearing together, and for your leadership on the increase of
militia violence in our country with your many different
hearings. As Members of Congress and as Americans, we cannot
afford to ignore the rising threat of militia extremism. The
events of January 6 clearly demonstrated the danger that
domestic violent extremism poses to our democracy. America
cannot afford to repeat the events of that day ever again, so
we need to be clear and honest about the connections between
militia extremism, white supremacists, domestic violent
extremism, and the events of January 6.
On that day, the whole world watched on TV as extremists in
military and police gear, some carrying weapons, broke into our
Capitol and tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.
Some of these insurrectionists were soldiers, and many others
were militia members with the Oath Keepers and other anti-
government gangs. While some militia groups publicly disavow
racism, the history of the militia movement is deeply
intertwined with white supremacy, and fast-growing militia
groups that are operating today are aligned with white
supremist extremists.
Days after the Capitol insurrection, the FBI, DHS, and the
National Counterterrorism Center issued a joint warning about
an increase in hateful, racist rhetoric by groups like the
Three Percenters. The report warned that the gathering of
domestic violent extremists on January 6 would likely foster
connections between radical groups and increase the
``willingness, capability, and motivation'' of those groups to
attack our government. In other words, January 6 was not just a
dangerous attack on our democracy, it was a massive recruiting
event for these extremist groups, who will continue to use it
to recruit others to their cause.
There is no room for excuses or ignoring this problem any
further. We need an honest assessment of the extent of this
problem, which is hiding in plain sight. Failure to address
this form of extremism will doom us to repeat the destruction
of January 6. That is why I am calling on the Senate to pass
the January 6 Commission bill that the House has already
passed. Like the 9/11 Commission, it will help us to understand
what happened, and, more importantly, it will help us prevent
what happened on January 6 from ever happening again.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, and I
yield back. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. And, Madam Chair, thank you for your very
thoughtful remarks there. And in order to pursue precisely that
objective, to make sure this never happens again, we have
assembled some of the finest authorities in the country on this
question, so I am going to introduce our witnesses now. Our
first is Mary McCord, who is the executive director of
Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy
and Protection. Then we will hear from the attorney general of
the great state of New Jersey, Gurbir Grewal. Welcome, Attorney
General. Then we will hear from Professor Peter Simi, who is
associate professor of sociology at Chapman University. And
finally, we will hear from Michael Gonzalez, who is a senior
fellow at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington, DC. So
with that, the witnesses will please unmute themselves as you
go. Well, actually, please all unmute yourselves now so I can
swear you in. Please raise your right hands on Zoom, if you
would.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Raskin. Great. Let the record show that the witnesses
each answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much.
Without objection, Witnesses, your written statements will
be made part of the record. Each of you will be given five
minutes to synthesize and summarize, and then we will open it
up for questions. Ms. McCord, you are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY MCCORD, ESQUIRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION,
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Ms. McCord. Thank you. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member
Sessions, members of the subcommittee, Chairwoman, thank you
for inviting me to testify.
Many people associate private militias with the armed
standoffs against Federal agents in areas of the West and the
South, but recently we have seen private militias engaging much
more frequently and openly with the general public. Operating
under a command and control structure, armed with assault
rifles, and often dressed in full military kits, private
militias have conducted armed assaults on state houses in
opposition to public health measures and in the assault on the
U.S. Capitol on January 6. They also have self-deployed during
racial justice demonstrations in supposed augmentation of law
enforcement. Their activity both threatens public safety and
infringes on the constitutional rights of others.
Indeed, recently analyzed data shows that in the last 16
months, there were over 900 incidents of armed activity during
demonstrations and protests, and more than 500 involved clearly
affiliated private militia actors. The results have sometimes
been lethal as last year's shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin
demonstrated, but there are potentially more dangerous threats,
including the 2020 plot by an accelerationist militia group,
The Base, to start a civil war in order to create a white
ethnostate, the plot by militia extremists to kidnap Michigan
Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, and the alleged plotting by militia
members who attacked the Capitol on January 6. Unfortunately,
there is a widespread misunderstanding that private militias
are constitutionally protected, but private militias are not
authorized by Federal or state law, they are not protected by
the Second Amendment, and they are unlawful in all 50 states.
First, since before the founding, ``well-regulated'' has
always meant regulated by the government. Historically, the
militia consisted of all able-bodied men who could be called
forth by the governor when needed and were answerable to the
governor. The well regulation of the militia was baked into the
U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to organize,
arm, and discipline the militia, a power it exercised by
authorizing the state militias answerable to state governments.
And it was baked into the constitutions of nearly every state,
which required that the military always be strictly subordinate
to and governed by the civil authority.
Second, the Supreme Court has been clear since 1886 that
the Second Amendment does not protect private militias, and
that states must be able to ban them as necessary to the public
peace, safety, and good order. The Supreme Court reiterated
this in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held for
the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right to bear arms for self-defense. Justice Antonin Scalia,
writing for the majority, pointedly contrasted that individual
right with paramilitary activity, restating that the Second
Amendment does not prevent the prohibition of private
paramilitary organizations.
And third, all 50 states prohibit private militias, whether
through their state constitutions or other state laws. Twenty-
nine states have anti-militia laws, like the one upheld by the
Supreme Court in 1886. Twenty-five states have paramilitary
activity laws that generally prohibit training and practicing
and the use of firearms or paramilitary techniques for use
during a civil disorder. Other state laws prohibit falsely
engaging in the functions of law enforcement or wearing
uniforms similar to the U.S. military.
These state laws are rarely enforced. They are not well
known to local law enforcement. Some local officials lack
access to information to build cases, or mistakenly believe
that private militia activity is constitutionally protected.
And some local officials lack the political will to enforce
anti-militia election laws, especially in areas with a high
number of pro-militia voters.
Congress should consider a Federal anti-militia law.
Private militias travel and transport weapons interstate,
combined with other extremist groups from multiple states, and
some have ties to foreign extremist groups. A Federal law
prohibiting private militia activity in public while armed
could provide a civil enforcement mechanism, in addition to
criminal penalties, allowing the U.S. Department of Justice to
seek injunctive relief and civil forfeiture against armed
paramilitary actors and their organizations. Legislation must
not infringe on constitutional rights and must not be
susceptible to misuse to target vulnerable populations. This is
feasible, and my organization would be happy to work with
Congress in exploring legislative options.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee.
Mr. Raskin. Well, Professor McCord, thank you very much for
your testimony, and we will absolutely take you up on your
offer. I turn now to Attorney General Grewal. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF GURBIR GREWAL, NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. Grewal. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member
Sessions, and members of the subcommittee. Good afternoon. I
appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of the
strategies that we are employing in New Jersey to address
militia extremism. Today's hearing is timely because the threat
of domestic violent extremism fueled by militia, anti-
government, anti---white supremacist ideologies, may be greater
today than at any time in recent memory, though, fortunately,
militia extremism is less prevalent in my state that in some
others.
By way of background, the department that I oversee plays a
significant role in monitoring and in analyzing intelligence
involving all forms of violent extremism and enforcing our laws
to address it. Underlying those efforts are strong reporting
and information-sharing requirements for all law enforcement
agencies in New Jersey whenever they receive tips or leads
relating to violence or terrorism or reports of bias incidents.
Like many states, New Jersey has criminal laws prohibiting
unlawful militia activity. Now, while our prosecutors charge
these crimes in appropriate cases, they may also charge other
offenses, like firearms offenses, to disrupt a dangerous
criminal plot and get those involved off of our streets before
they engage in violent acts. But criminal tools alone aren't
enough for us to address violent extremism, so we have taken a
more holistic approach in my state, not only prosecuting
criminal misconduct, but also confronting the root causes of
extremist violence. Today, I will highlight two of our
strategies.
First, we are working to address hate and bias among our
young people. New Jersey, unfortunately, has seen a sharp
increase in reported bias incidents in recent years, which is
part of a rising tide of hate from coast to coast. Reported
bias and hate incidents in my state nearly quadrupled in the
past five or so years from about 367 reported in 2015, to over
1,400 reported in 2020, and far too many of these incidents
involve young people, either as the perpetrators or as the
victims. So, to address this troubling trend, New Jersey
Governor, Phil Murphy, convened a statewide task force to study
these issues and to offer solutions. Among other
recommendations, that task force called for reforms to our
state's education system to include anti-bias education for
students and teachers, to put forward tougher hate crime laws,
and to increase public engagement to address hate and bias. The
task force report also highlights the roles played by hateful
and extremist rhetoric on social media and from public figures,
and it offers recommendations to mitigate the harms that that
rhetoric can inflict on our young people. Our hope is that
these strategies will result in fewer young people embracing a
worldview that might lead them toward extremist violence.
The second strategy that I will briefly highlight is our
work to address unlawful firearms activity that poses a threat
to our public safety. New Jersey has some of the strongest
firearms laws in the country, including universal background
checks, limits on assault rifles and large capacity magazines,
and red flag laws. These laws have been effective. New Jersey
now has the third-lowest gun death rate in the country, but in
spite of our successes, a stronger Federal response is needed
to aid our efforts because most guns used in crimes in my state
come from other states. So, if the Federal Government adopted
the same kind of commonsense firearm safety laws that we have
here in New Jersey, we could reduce the number of firearms that
make it into the hands of individuals who use them illegally.
We believe that these strategies--addressing bias and hate,
reducing unlawful firearms activity, coupled with our criminal
enforcement, our robust data collection, and information
sharing, as well as other efforts--can play an important role
in responding comprehensively to the threats of violent
extremism, including militia and white supremacist extremism.
So, I thank you again for inviting me to speak with you today,
and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Attorney General, for your
excellent testimony. I come now to Professor Simi. You are now
recognized for your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETER SIMI, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
SOCIOLOGY, CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Simi. Chairperson Raskin, Ranking Member Sessions, and
members of the subcommittee, good afternoon, and thank you for
this opportunity to offer my thoughts regarding white
supremacists and anti-government militias, a deeply troubling
and vitally important issue.
Starting in 1997, I began conducting what social scientists
refer to as ethnographic fieldwork with anti-government and
white supremacist extremists across the U.S. That field work
included, among other things, attending KKK cross burnings,
neo-Nazi music shows, racist church services, and living with
extremist families in order to understand their daily lives and
how they make sense of the world. This type of research
provided firsthand observation of how extremists managed to
infiltrate various segments of society and blend into the
mainstream. My ethnographic fieldwork started with a self-
defined militia group in the southwestern United States, a
group that represents the hybrid nature of right-wing
extremism, blending anti-government extremism with Christian
identity, which is a white supremacist interpretation of
Christianity, the skinhead subculture, and various other
elements.
There is a longstanding overlap between white supremacist
extremism and militias. The overlap during the first wave of
the militia movement in the early `90's is well documented. The
second wave of the militia movement emerged following Barack
Obama's Presidential election. Leading up to the 2016
Presidential election, militias coalesced around Donald Trump's
campaign and eventual presidency, and turned their attention
toward alleged communist threats, like Antifa and Black Lives
Matter, while also focusing on anti-lockdown activism related
to COVID-19.
Observers often describe three types of right-wing
extremists: white supremacists, anti-government, and single
issue. While helpful in some respects, these buckets
oversimplify a reality that is far more convoluted. While many
militia groups may claim a race-neutral ideology, this type of
disavowal strategy is common across right-wing extremist
groups, including those that most observers would widely
recognize as white supremacist, for example, KKK factions. In
other words, there are very few individuals or groups who
openly self-identify as white supremacist. Militia groups, in
my experience, have a range of beliefs consistent with those
found among groups more commonly defined as white supremacists.
Further, there is cross-fertilization among individuals
associated with militias and white supremacist groups, with
some individuals going back and forth and other individuals
simultaneously affiliating with both types of groups. The high
degree of overlap can render clear delineations artificial and
misleading.
Moreover, the idea that militias are race neutral is an
illusion. Militias routinely oppose immigration and, in some
cases, conduct armed patrols of the southern U.S. border.
Militias also generally oppose Muslims as an existential threat
to Western civilization. Militias' opposition to immigrants and
the rejection of Muslims can only be described as xenophobic
and racist. In other cases, militias often hold views about the
``new world order'' that quickly bleed into old tropes
regarding the ``international Jew.''
On January 6, 2021, tens of thousands of President Trump's
supporters gathered in Washington, DC. to protest what was
described as ``the stolen election.'' The Capitol insurrection
that followed involved a broad constellation of right-wing
extremists. Some people looked at the images of January 6 and
commented, ``They don't look like extremists or terrorists,''
but that begs the question, what do extremists or terrorists
look like? The answer is, of course, obvious: extremism and
terrorism are not about what a person looks like. They are
about what a person thinks, feels, and how they behave. If you
think, feel, and act like an extremist, then you are an
extremist, and it should not matter whether you look like
someone's next door neighbor or co-worker. And in some cases,
extremists and even terrorists may wrap themselves in the U.S.
flag and/or hold positions within law enforcement and the
military.
As we struggle to address these issues, we should be
cognizant of our perceptual biases that may lead to highly
distorted interpretations regarding what extremism and
terrorism look like. We should not see January 6 as either new
or an aberration. When people say, ``As Americans, we don't do
this,'' I appreciate the sentiment, but the sentiment is wrong.
As Americans, we do this, and we have a long history of doing
this. Pretending otherwise does not help us address the
problem. Violent right-wing extremism, like we saw at the
Capitol, has been allowed to fester for decades as these
networks built a massive infrastructure in online and offline
spaces where highly emotive propaganda is created and widely
distributed.
For too long, the U.S. has denied and minimized this
problem. That time should end. Thank you, and I look forward to
our discussion today.
Mr. Raskin. Professor Simi, thank you very much for your
testimony. And now we will go to Mr. Gonzalez for your five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GONZALEZ, M.B.A., SENIOR FELLOW, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member
Sessions, and Chairwoman Maloney, for allowing me to speak. My
name is Mike Gonzalez. I am a senior fellow at the Heritage
Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own
and should not be construed as representing any official
position of the Heritage Foundation.
I was a foreign correspondent for 15 years, living and
covering some of the globe's most dangerous spots. I have been
teargassed in Korea, arrested and expelled from Panama, and
traveled with the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's. I
have also lived in Cuba, where I was born. I have, in other
words, known political strife in my life up close. I do not
recommend it. One of the many good things about our country is
that, generally, we solve our political differences in peace.
The periods of political violence we have had have been
exceptions with 240 years of political peace and prosperity and
an experiment in self-rule and limited government that was
hitherto unknown to man.
Unfortunately, for the past 12 months, America has lived
through moments of violence on its streets, a period of
instability led by the Black Lives Matter organization. The
violence has so far led to at least 25 Americans being killed,
and, according to the Insurance Information Institute, more
than $1 billion in insured losses. We have witnessed over 600
riots, according to the U.S. Crisis Monitor, and BLM activists
were involved in 95 percent of the incidents coded as riots for
which the identity of the participants is known. Federal
buildings came under attack, police stations were torched, et
cetera.
The period of political instability we are currently
experiencing was sparked by the horrifying killing of George
Floyd on May 25 last year. The violence associated with BLM,
however, was not restricted to just last year. In a paper
published just this month, University of Massachusetts
researcher, Travis Campbell, tracked more than 1,600 BLM
protests nationwide between 2014 and 2019. Campbell found that,
``Civilian homicides increased by 10 percent following the
protests.'' Vox, by no means a conservative outlet, put the
impact this way: ``That means that from 2014 to 2019, there
were somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than
would have been expected if places with protests were on the
same trend as places that did not have protests.''
Obviously, both BLM and Antifa are not the only sources of
political violence in America. Americans of different races and
both sexes broke the law and entered the U.S. Capitol on
January 6. That act was, needless to say, despicable. The
members of this great body sought refuge, and many feared they
could be harmed or worse. It is important to condemn this act.
The people who participated in violence and property
destruction on the U.S. Capitol on January 6 deserve
prosecution. And unlike the vast majority of those who
participated in BLM riots over the past summer, they are being
prosecuted. The message needs to be sent across the land that
no political violence will be tolerated.
January 6 took place in the context of far too many
Americans apparently coming to the conclusion that their
grievances will only receive a hearing and that political
leaders will bend to the demands if they take to the streets,
invade and attack public and private buildings, and intimidate
their fellow Americans. You, our political leaders, have the
responsibility to stop this dangerous notion from spreading,
and if you do nothing, the responsibility for continued
violence will be yours as well. Instead, a Member of this House
said at a demonstration last month, before the Derek Chauvin
verdict was rendered: ``We've got to stay on the street, and
we've got to get more active. We've got to get more
confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we
mean business.'' If people on the right or left, Republican or
Democrat, continue to justify and excuse the political violence
of those whom they believe to be ``on my side,'' they are
simply condoning these acts and encouraging more rather than
suppressing them.
In closing, I would like to quote from my upcoming book on
Black Lives Matter, in which I make the point that the groups
that are reported to have been involved in the disgraceful
January 6 attack, ``have very little power over our lives. For
all the awful symbolism of the attack, those groups do not have
a political action committee, bills in Congress, millions of
dollars in hand, a curriculum being disseminated to the
country's 14,000 school districts, a sycophantic media that
acts as a press agent, or the cultural cachet that lets BLM
partner with the musical, Hamilton . . . BLM has all these
things.''
I want to thank you very much for your time and attention
and for the honor of testifying with you today.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Gonzalez, thank you so much for your
testimony. I feel like I have been doing a lot of talking, so I
am going to hold my questions until we get to the end. And
perhaps, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, if you are ready, you can be
the first majority questioner.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am ready
to go, and I appreciate your indulgence, although not
necessary. And I will say that I was hopeful that this hearing
would start out without divisive rhetoric. Unfortunately, that
was not to be the case. I certainly think that tossing around
loaded language, like the ranking member did by referring to
so-called instigators and accusing organizations, like Black
Lives Matter groups, who are certainly doing nothing except
making sure that they could stand up for justice, is
inappropriate for a hearing like this.
That having been said, I want to ask my questions first of
Professor Simi. You are an expert in white supremacist groups.
Many leaders of the militia movement publicly disavow racism
and distance themselves from white supremacist ideologies, and
they claim that their movement is motivated not by racial
animus, but by concerns about a tyrannical U.S. Government and
a sinister new world order. I mean, I think these claims of
anti-racism are a smokescreen that makes it more difficult to
effectively combat militia extremism. This is for Professor
Simi. Do you consider racism and white supremacy to be an
animating factor of militia extremism?
Mr. Simi. Well, in short, yes, and I would agree that it is
a strategy that is widely practiced. This disavow. It is public
relations. It is a branding campaign. It is a way to create
confusion, and it is a well-worn strategy that has existed for
a long time. Even people like David Duke, you know, a Klan
figure, a well-known neo-Nazi, used this strategy in part to
get elected to the state legislature to Louisiana. So, this is
a well-worn strategy that has existed for a long time, and
certainly militia groups of various kinds utilize this
strategy. And so you have to look at kind of behind the scenes
and dig a little deeper to really see what are very clear
indications of racial animus and various other related forms of
bigotry.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Another linkage between militia
extremism and the broader problem of white supremacist violence
is a vast fascination with conspiracy theories. In recent
months, even in this committee hearing today, we have seen
militia groups attend various protests at events to ``confront
Antifa,'' a group whose members they believe are trained in
Syrian terror camps and funded by George Soros. So, Professor,
we have seen tragic examples, like the shooting of the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, of how conspiracy theories can
motivate people to commit acts of violence. As new conspiracy
theories gain prominence within the militia movement, what
threat do these beliefs pose to our collective safety?
Mr. Simi. Well, the conspiracy theories are very central to
extremists of all sorts. They really provide a type of glue in
many respects, and they will often provide points of continuity
and connection to folks that might not otherwise be connected.
So, you know, in many respects what we are dealing with is a
worldview, a broad worldview, a constellation, and the
conspiracy theories oftentimes are the things that are
connecting the dots, right? And so conspiracy theories can
start off in ways that might appear somewhat benign, but they
can take hold and really move in a much more radicalized,
violent direction. And so that is obviously our gravest concern
in terms of threat to public safety.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And really, in my last seconds, I
want to ask Ms. McCord, how does militia coordination with
other far-right extremists during the insurrection demonstrate
the risks of viewing militia groups as separate from other
white supremacist extremists, because we certainly had warnings
and demonstrable evidence that there was coordination between
white supremacists and militia groups. And you could see that
in the video from ``60 Minutes'' that the chairman showed as
well.
Ms. McCord. Yes. Thank you for your question. So, my
organization worked with a lot of researchers over the past
years that were tracking online social media and other activity
of militia extremist groups, as well as conspiracy theorists,
accelerationists, and other white supremacists extremist
groups. And we saw an incredible cross-population of their
propaganda and rhetoric, so it is not as though militias only
talk to militias, et cetera. And I think that was really
illustrated in the actual insurrection because you had all of
these groups stepping out of that virtual space into that
physical space in Washington, DC, united around a narrative
that had been building even before the election, went into
overdrive after the election, the ``Stop the Steal'' narrative,
and it was able to be that coalescing force that brought all
these extremist groups together.
The militias, of course, had, you know, planned, pre-
planned, as you saw in the ``60 Minutes'' piece, and many of us
knew from looking at social media and their communications, not
communications that were encrypted or using surveillance
techniques, but just within their own forums, and we knew that
they were planning in advance and planning things like a quick
reaction force. Put that together, the conspiracy theorists and
the crowds, you have the crowd became a mob. They led the
charge and the insurrection ensued, participated in by many,
many, many people.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for allowing me the opportunity to connect the dots with my
line of questioning today, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. You are very welcome. The gentlelady's time has
expired. I turn now to the ranking member for his five minutes
of questioning. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCord, do you
consider the KKK to be a group that would advocate violence or
use of force?
Ms. McCord. The KKK has in the past, and, in fact, in your
home state, Congressman, there was a case in the 1980's brought
against the militia wing of the KKK, a successful case that
resulted in enjoining them from their abusive threats and
violence against Vietnamese fishermen, who had relocated there
after the war.
Mr. Sessions. Right. Let us try and go at least to 2015 and
forward then. Do you believe that the KKK uses violence or use
of force?
Ms. McCord. I think there are members that do. I would say
that is not currently one of the militia groups that I think
are presenting the greatest threat. Militia groups include
nationwide groups like we have heard about: Oath Keepers, Three
Percenters. They also are at the local level, and many people
associate with both. The KKK is a white supremacist group that
has members that are part of militias and that advocate for
violence, and has others that have, you know, their own points
of view and maybe don't advocate for violence.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Do you believe that that
there is any group within the United States military that would
take this action of violence or use of force within the
military? Not that military members might or might not be part
of that, but within the actual military?
Ms. McCord. I am not entirely sure I understand the
question. Certainly some militias recruit from the military,
and we know that there is at least one active duty military who
has been charged resulting from the insurrection. If what you
are asking is do I think there is a group within the military
that, in their role as active duty military, would attempt to
commit acts of violence in the U.S., I don't know of any
research that has shown that to be a current threat. But, you
know, the military is barred by many reasons, Posse Comitatus
Act among them, from engaging in domestic law enforcement. So,
generally speaking, the military does not even engage in
activity in the U.S., absent certain exceptions under the
Constitution and Federal statute.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am, that was my question. Dr. Simi,
going to the questions of violence and use of force, do you
believe that BLM would fit within that category?
Mr. Simi. No, I do not.
Mr. Sessions. Do you believe that Antifa would be included
in use of violence or use of force?
Mr. Simi. There would be some aspects of Antifa that would
fit that.
Mr. Sessions. There would be some. Do you believe that the
Three Percenters have found themselves in circumstances that we
could point to where they had violence and use of force?
Mr. Simi. Sure. In Kansas, there were Three Percenters that
were arrested and charged with trying to attack a housing
community where immigrants lived, so, yes, absolutely.
Mr. Sessions. What year was that, sir?
Mr. Simi. Approximately two years ago.
Mr. Sessions. Two years ago? Do you consider that the
people who were engaged in showing up at military funerals to
disrupt people--I don't remember their name--do you consider
that they would be considered violent and use of force also
that we need to pay attention to?
Mr. Simi. I think you are referring to the Westboro Baptist
Church.
Mr. Sessions. I would be.
Mr. Simi. OK. As far as my knowledge, I have no information
of any history of them being actually involved in violence. In
fact, they were involved in successful a Supreme Court case, as
I recall.
Mr. Sessions. Well, use of force would be, and I think that
I would say that I believe that their use of force showing up
at funerals to disrupt them is a use of force. Thank you very
much. Mr. Gonzalez, do you consider that BLM uses violence and
uses force to achieve their political beliefs?
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, as I said, I was
quoting the Armed Conflict Location and Events Data Project,
which is not a conservative outfit. Their Crisis Monitor was
very clear that we had 633 riots last year, events coded as
riots, and that 95 percent of those for which the identity of
the perpetrator was known, they were BLM activists. So, it is
very hard to say that BLM does not provoke violence when you
have the ACLED showing this data.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you. And the Attorney General, if I
could ask you one last question. Do you care who it is that
shows up in the state to cause violence or use of force? Are
you concerned about just those two things and you would take
action against any of them? ``Any of the groups,'' I mean Three
Percenters, KKK, Antifa, BLM. Anyone that showed up in New
Jersey to use violence or use of force, do you believe that you
would, as attorney general, view them all as a threat to the
public safety?
Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time has expired. You may
answer the question.
Mr. Grewal. I would.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
Mr. Grewal. I would, Ranking Member.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much for the time.
Mr. Raskin. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Sessions. Going now to
the distinguished Congresswoman from Illinois, Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing.
I must admit starting off with ``60 Minutes'', that was
hard to look at. As one of the people that was in the gallery
hoping to get out alive, that brought it back.
I want to thank the attorney general for what you said. I
have been fighting in Congress for over eight years and
discussing gun violence prevention, trafficking, store
purchases, and all of that. But it has been very difficult to
get colleagues on the other side of the aisle to agree to work
on any of those issues. So, I am glad you raised how important
it is.
And also the other thing is, it is a little--or I won't
even say a little. It is a lot insulting to hear about BLM.
When BLM protesters--and it is OK to protest in the United
States--came to the Capitol, there were lots of armed people
out, all covering the steps making sure they didn't do
anything. And that same--it was very different when it was--it
may have been mixed, Mr. Gonzalez, but it was at least 95 to 98
percent white that stormed the Capitol and with very little
resistance because they were not prepared.
So, it is a little insulting to hear ``I don't care if
someone is black, I don't care if someone is,'' but it is
always a person of color that was mentioned that we don't care
about. And it is just so frustrating it is hard for me to even
get my words out that the way people talk, you don't even
understand your privilege. You don't even think about why there
is a Black Lives Matter, why it is necessary for there to be a
Black Lives Matter. Because just listening to the conversation,
we don't count. And we do count.
In August 2020, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse from Illinois
traveled across state lines to join the Kenosha Guard militia,
which had sent out a call for help policing Black Lives Matter
protests that were occurring in the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin.
As we all know, Rittenhouse arrived armed with a rifle to, in
his telling, ``protect private property.'' After several
cordial interactions with Kenosha police, Rittenhouse fatally
shot two protesters and wounded another. He is now awaiting
trial for first-degree murder.
This incident reveals that though militias are generally
thought of as anti-government, they pose a very real threat to
the general public. Yet the Federal Government continues to
stress the threat that militias pose only to government
officials, as the ODNI asserted in its March report.
Ms. McCord, you have been involved in several lawsuits
filed in the wake of violent militia activity. Can you give
some background on the lawsuits and what kind of laws you have
utilized to make your claims? And then just go on to talk about
what is your view of the threat militias pose to civilian
populations, as opposed to just government officials.
Ms. McCord. Yes, thank you for the question.
I spent a long career, by the way, at the Department of
Justice, 23 years there, and left in May 2017. In August, of
course, we saw the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville,
Virginia, and we saw self-professed militias coming there from
across the country, ostensibly to protect the rights of the
white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates. We also
saw those white nationalists and neo-Nazis themselves engaging
in paramilitary activity, coordinated, armed activity against
counter-protesters.
So, my organization at Georgetown, recognizing that wasn't
protected First Amendment activity--that violence, those
threats of violence, it wasn't protected under the Second
Amendment, given the Supreme Court's case law about
paramilitary activity. We relied on state anti-paramilitary
laws, the laws I spoke about in my testimony--the state
constitutional provision in Virginia, state anti-paramilitary
law, state law prohibiting private individuals from adopting
the functions of law enforcement, and also public nuisance. And
we brought a lawsuit strictly for injunctive relief, not for
damages, forward-looking injunctive relief on behalf of the
city, small businesses, and residential associations against 23
different individuals and organizations who had participated in
that unlawful militia activity.
We were successful against motions to dismiss challenging
our legal theories, and after we were successful in defeating
those motions, all of the organizations, except for a couple
who had defaulted, and all of the individuals, including the
organizers, entered into consent decrees, which the court then
issued as court orders permanently prohibiting them from
returning to Charlottesville as part of a unit of two or more
persons acting in concert while armed with a firearm or
anything whose purpose is for use as a weapon during any
demonstration, protest, rally, or march.
We've used the precedent there to advise jurisdictions
small and large and including advising law enforcement about
these tools that they have under their state law to issue
reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions
in order to protect public safety during demonstrations without
infringing on First Amendment rights and Second Amendment
rights. And we recently this past summer, co-counsel with the
Bernalillo County, New Mexico, district attorney, Raul Torrez,
who is--we are co-counsel with him in an enforcement action
against a local militia in New Mexico that deployed to a racial
justice demonstration heavily armed, again ostensibly to
protect--to prevent demonstrators from tearing down a statue of
a Spanish conquistador. And that case is ongoing.
So, what we have seen----
Ms. Kelly. I know my time is up. So, I don't want to--I am
sorry.
Ms. McCord. I'm sorry.
Mr. Raskin. You can finish your point, Ms. McCord. And
thank you, Ms. Kelly.
Ms. McCord. Yes. So, what we've seen in these cases and
engaging again--and I've spoken with officials, Republicans and
Democrats, across the country who are looking for help to
protect public safety. We've seen militias repeatedly
traveling. We see they continue to muster and train. They talk
about opposing governmental tyranny. There is no support in our
history of Constitution for that role by private actors. And
we've seen them infringing on other people's constitutional
rights, other people's rights to free speech and to petition
their government.
So, I see them very much as a public safety and national
security threat.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I will now come to Mr.
Biggs for his five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the ranking
member, and I appreciate the witnesses being here today.
Mr. Chairman, as I begin today, I would like to request
this committee investigate the connection between the Wuhan
Institute of Virology and the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of us
have been speaking about that connection between the lab and
the spread of the virus for some time, but there has recently
been increased discussion about the origins of the pandemic.
And even Dr. Fauci seems to be coming around to the position
that the virus may have originated at the lab.
I know it is not on topic, but the pandemic has impacted
every aspect of American life for over a year, and it is time
for a thorough investigation of the origins of the virus. This
should be an area, in my opinion, that garners bipartisan
support. We should all want to know how the pandemic started,
and so I will be submitting several articles on that for the
record on that topic.
Now this is the fifth hearing that this subcommittee has
held on confronting white supremacy. Over the summer, we saw
riots engulf our cities. Small businesses were destroyed, shops
looted, churches set on fire, and yet we have not had a single
hearing on Antifa and its violent activities.
And so I get we were looking at Oath Keepers. That was what
your focus was when you brought up the ``60 Minutes'' video.
This is what NPR says about ``60 Minutes'' from a piece just a
month ago. ``Still, it is--'' speaking of the Oath Keepers.
``Still, it is not a rigid, cohesive organization. Instead,
researchers say it is loosely knit. The Justice Department
describes it as a 'large, but loosely organized collection of
individuals.'"
And what does CBS say about Antifa? It is very similar to
that. It is ``not a highly organized movement, nor is it merely
an idea. It is a loose affiliation of local activists scattered
across the U.S. and a few other countries.''
Seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to be looking at
both of these groups. If you are going to spend time looking at
Oath Keepers, let us look at Antifa, too, and see what they
have done because we have had unrest around this country for
over a year now.
But given the events of the past couple of weeks, I would
also ask that the subcommittee hold hearings on the anti-
Semitic violence that is occurring in cities across the
country. For example, last week a synagogue in Tucson, Arizona,
was vandalized. In New York City, a Jewish man was beaten in
the middle of the street. In Bal Harbour, Florida, four men
yelled ``Die Jew'' at a man in a skullcap, then they threatened
to rape his wife and his daughter.
On Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League shared early
reports of 193 anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. compared with
131 during the previous week. On Twitter, the group said it
found more than 17,000 tweets using variations of the phrase
``Hitler was right'' between May 7 and 14.
Now regardless of where those anti-Semitic sentiments and
violence originate, I think we need to be looking at those as
well.
There was a TikTok challenging Palestinian youth to
violently beat an Orthodox Jew and post a video of the assault
on the platform.
Mr. Gonzalez, I turn to you now. Can you explain why it is
important for Congress to focus on all types of political
violence and not just one?
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Congressman.
Obviously, in a democracy, the voter has to hear from both
sides, and the voter cannot be intimidated--cannot be feared to
be canceled or afraid to speak. If we continue on the path
we've been on in which one side justifies the violence of those
it deems to be on their side, then we're just condoning them,
and we're going to get more violence. In my experience, we get
more of what we condone and less of what we discourage.
So, I think it is proper and necessary to discourage and
condemn the violence that took place on January 6 and the
violence that took place during 2020. Both sides need to be
condemned, especially by our leaders.
Thank you for your question.
Mr. Biggs. So, you also said in your statement that, ``Our
media and pundits, having taken a side in our political
debates--itself a dangerous development--do not speak of the
BLM violence in the same context of political violence as that
on January 6.'' Will you please expand on that and tell us why
you think it is important that we not treat acts of political
violence differently?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sure. The media, in my opinion, my
humble opinion, all through 2020 did not really report or cover
what was happening, the BLM-led violence. They rather covered
for them. Again, this is not informing the public, which is the
role of the media.
The media should be impartial, should be objective, should
report as it did on January 6. But it should also report on
what happened in Kenosha, what happened in Portland, what
happened in Seattle, what happened in many, many, many cities
during 2020. Let's not forget what we lived through in 2020.
Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you for your questioning, Mr.
Biggs.
Coming now to the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms.
Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairman Raskin.
Echoing the sentiments expressed by my sister colleague
there from Illinois, I would just like to say how deeply
offensive it is and inaccurate to equate the Black Lives Matter
movement with militia groups. Just know that when you do that,
as many of my colleagues are prone to quote Dr. King, that you
are, in fact, spitting on Dr. King, on his name, on his legacy,
an original architect of the Black Lives Matter movement. He
was protesting police brutality, poverty, racism, and
militarism.
But I digress--and doing it nonviolently and was affirming
that Black lives mattered and was murdered because of it. But I
digress. The oppression, the struggle continues, and white
supremacy continues to thrive, and it is--and these militia
groups are a threat to our democracy, to every American,
especially minoritized and marginalized groups who call this
country home.
And it is especially alarming that these violent extremists
are operating with the tacit and explicit support of police
officers who have taken an oath to keep us safe. Militia groups
like the Oath Keepers, who we saw in that video, openly
bragging about having active duty law enforcement in their
membership. And leaked data suggest that two-thirds of their
members have law enforcement or military affiliation.
The Three Percenters, as have been mentioned, another white
supremacist militia who actively recruit from law enforcement
and military communities and including members who were
arrested for their role in the January 6 attack. And we cannot
ignore that the violent, racist, anti-Semitic, white
supremacist mob that endangered the lives of myself, my
colleagues, staff, and current--included current and former
police officers.
Professor Simi, you study this link between policing and
extremism, are you surprised by the prevalence of Oath Keepers
and the Three Percenters with law enforcement and military
affiliation?
Mr. Simi. Thank you for the question.
No, I'm not surprised. Again, this is a--you know, these
specific groups represent a broader problem, which is the
infiltration of rightwing extremism into law enforcement ranks,
which has been, you know, a problem that we've been dealing
with for a long time, but again, not necessarily addressing in
nearly as an aggressive manner as we should have been.
And so it doesn't surprise me. It concerns me greatly, and
I really think it speaks to the need for a national initiative
to try and root out--first of all, try and identify, because we
really don't know the extent of the actual problem in terms of
the number of rightwing extremists that actively hold positions
in law enforcement.
And it's not just those that are members of groups either.
It's folks who are adherents on some level, that have the
beliefs, that have certain animus that is undeniably going to
influence how they conduct themselves on the job. And so, we
know that having these kind of strong beliefs affect a person's
behavior on the job.
So, it's both the membership, but it's also folks that have
the beliefs that aren't necessarily connected to any specific
groups. And so, I think we need to have a national tracking
initiative to try and identify this and then root it out.
Thank you.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And how would you say that the
presence of law enforcement and military personnel, could you
unpack it a little bit more, how does that make militia groups
more dangerous? What is the impact?
Mr. Simi. Well, yes. One, it's, you know, the authority
that you have as a law enforcement officer, and in terms of
military, of course, you're receiving highly skilled training.
And so one of the things that a lot of these types of groups
really are looking for are folks with certain kinds of skill
sets in terms of, you know, experiences with weapon training,
explosives, and just, frankly, leadership training as well.
And so, these groups, oftentimes one of the reasons why
they go after, in terms of recruitment, veterans is that
they're looking for those kind of skill sets. And then on the
front end is that in many cases, groups will encourage their
members to join the military. So, that is individuals who are
already of this mindset, you know, go into the military for
very strategic purposes, in order to, again, acquire that kind
of training.
So, I would say the training is the big kind of threat
there in terms of, you know, threat to public safety.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
And again, we have repeatedly seen how covert and overt law
enforcement allegiance to militia activity has emboldened white
supremacist extremists, and it contributes to vigilante
activity. In Salem, Oregon, officers advised militiamen to stay
out of sight leading up to the curfew to avoid arrest. In
Philadelphia, an officer stood by as white supremacist
vigilantes assaulted a reporter.
In Albuquerque, police allegedly referred to a local
militia as ``armed friendlies.'' And in Kenosha, Wisconsin, the
police praised militia members shortly before one of them, Kyle
Rittenhouse, shot and killed two protesters.
The direct partnership between law enforcement and white
supremacist militias must be called out and must be confronted.
Attorney General Grewal, how has your office been able to
successfully prevent infiltration of state law enforcement by
Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and others?
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady's time has expired, but Attorney
General, please answer the question.
Mr. Grewal. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you,
Congresswoman Pressley.
I'm the chief law enforcement officer for my state, and I
have oversight authority over 38,000 law enforcement officers
and 530 law enforcement agencies. And I have the ability in my
state, which is unique for AGs, to issue law enforcement
directives, which are binding on all law enforcement officers.
So, we've been working with our Division on Civil Rights,
with our Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, to do a
survey of white supremacist groups that are active here, to
include Oath Keepers, to include Three Percenters, to compile
their insignia and the signatures that they use, to better
inform our chiefs of police so they can formulate policies,
whether uniform policies not to allow folks to wear patches,
which we've seen in the past, the Three Percenter patches on
uniforms and things of that nature. Because we think that has
no place in law enforcement, and people with these ideologies
have no place in law enforcement.
And we're also working on the front end to screen out those
individuals from coming into law enforcement. So, we're doing
more as far as background checks, social media scrubs, to make
sure that these types of individuals don't come into law
enforcement. Because I can think of nothing that undermines the
trust of the public more quickly, which we're trying to build
every day, than allowing these types of individuals who hold
these ideologies to enter into law enforcement.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Pressley.
I come now to Mr. Franklin for his five minutes.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses today. I really appreciate
the effort you put into your testimony, and I found it all to
be very informative.
Attorney General Grewal, in looking in your comments, your
testimony, I see that you made an assessment that New Jersey
classifies white supremacists or extremists and home-grown
violent extremists as the most persistent hostile actors in the
state. And that was after the background you gave in your
testimony.
You started with Timothy McVeigh, which I think for most--
or for myself as an adult, that was my first clear memory of
domestic terrorism, though obviously back in the 1960's, we had
the Weather Underground and other groups like that. But that
was a very significant event. Timothy McVeigh was clearly, at
least from what we learned of him, a white supremacist. He was
also anti-government.
You also referenced the attack in New Jersey in 2019 that
killed six. That was actually perpetrated by an African-
American anti-Semite. You referenced the gentleman--well, not
gentleman, but Mr. Breheny from New Jersey, who was arrested
January 6. He is currently awaiting trial on a number of
charges.
And then also the Parkland shooting in Florida that was
attributed to a person with severe mental illness that should
have never happened. And that was known, and had the system
worked, that tragedy could have been avoided.
But I was kind of puzzled from your testimony at how you
drew that white supremacy is such--is the overarching threat to
the state of New Jersey. And then I thought, well, maybe you
had made reference to a source that was cited also in this
memorandum about the hearing we have today that was done by the
Department of Homeland Security. It is the Homeland Threat
Assessment.
And in that assessment--so I went looking for that,
thinking, well, surely there must be a lot of meat on that
document there that I would like to learn about. What we
received was an unclassified summary of a document. So, I have
to assume that if we got an executive summary, there is an
underlying document.
This was unclassified. Our staff tried for a couple of days
to dig that up, we're finally told, no, we can't get that.
There is not an unclassified, but apparently, there is a
classified document, which I think would be very informative
for this committee. I would love to know what that document
gets into, and I think it is something we should have a
followup meeting about.
But within the bulletized executive summary, it says the
intelligence community assesses that U.S. racial and ethnically
motivated violent extremists who promote superiority of the
white race are the domestic violent extremist actors with the
most persistent and concerning transnational connections. The
reason--and the reasoning that it cites is because they have
similar ideological beliefs with people outside the United
States, and they frequently communicate with and seek to
influence one another.
To me, I am not really sure how those two criteria there
justify white supremacists being the most violent threat that
we face in the country, but I am sure there is more in that
classified document that I would hope we get to.
But we look at events that have happened over the--well,
also the document makes further reference to other groups--
domestic violent extremists; racially or ethnically motivated
violent extremists; animal rights, environmental violent
extremists; abortion-related violent extremists; anti-
government, anti-authority violent extremists; and then all
other domestic terrorism threats. So, this DHS document refers
to a lot of different threats, with white supremacy only being
one of those, and yet that seems to be the only topic or the
only focus of this hearing today. That is a little concerning
to me.
But moving on to Professor Simi, I really appreciated your
work. Obviously, you spent a lot of years studying this topic,
and I found that to be very informative. You talked about
Timothy McVeigh as well, the Olympic bombings. But then you
mentioned that had the perpetrators been people of color or
Muslim, you could be sure the response would have been
dramatically different.
So, I actually had our staff do a little research over the
last couple days pulling domestic attacks just over the last 10
years, and we really do become desensitized to this as a
country. I started going--there were at least 15 here. But I
have got to tell you, some were high-profile like the Boston
Marathon bombing. Obviously, that was a Muslim extremist.
We had the San Bernardino, California, shooting that killed
14. Muslim extremist there. The Orlando nightclub shooting just
down the road from me in Florida, Central Florida, that killed
49 people. Also not white supremacy. New York City truck attack
in 2017 that killed eight. Again, not white supremacy.
Now there are examples of that, and I am not trying to say
that there aren't. But there is a lot of violence in our
country and a lot of people are being killed unnecessarily, and
yet we are choosing to zero in on a very small piece of this.
I know I am almost out of time, but Professor Simi, I would
love to hear your comments about what terrorist extremists look
like? Because it seems to me, and to cite--not spitting on Dr.
King's grave, I have tremendous respect for him. I think he
would be ashamed of what has been happening in our country. He
would have never condoned $2 billion of violence in a two-week
period last year.
But it does make me wonder when you say extremism and
terrorism are not about what you look like. Extremism and
terrorism are defined by a person's beliefs, feelings, and
characters. And just a question for you, sir. Would it be fair
to summarize that as saying that it is about a person's
character and not the color of their skin?
Mr. Raskin. OK, the gentleman's time has expired, but you
can answer that, Dr. Simi.
Mr. Simi. Thanks for the question.
That would be fair in terms of what I'm trying to get at.
It's about beliefs, feelings, and behavior, not about what we
think in our mind an extremist or terrorist looks like based on
our preconceived notions and our biases.
You know, there is research that shows, for instance,
mainstream media outlets do treat acts of violence differently
based on race and religion, ethnicity of the perpetrators. So,
we do have these biases that are swirling around that affect
how we see different types of violence.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't various sorts of
different acts of violence committed by a whole host of
different actors, but we treat different kinds based on race,
ethnicity, religion, and other characteristics differently than
the kind that we're talking about here today in terms of white
supremacists and the anti-government militia extremism.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
going long.
Mr. Raskin. Not at all. Thank you, Congressman Franklin.
I come now to Congresswoman Norton, who is recognized for
her five minutes of questioning. The gentlelady from the
District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franklin went through a series of things that weren't
white supremacy. I would like to look definitionally at what we
are talking about because we certainly are not talking simply
about white supremacy, even though many of these attacks have
been by white supremacists.
So, I found that the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence--and I think that is a source that all of us would
take as objective--they describe militia extremists as domestic
violent extremists who--and here I am quoting them now--who
``take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the
overthrow of the U.S. Government.'' That is who I am focusing
on.
I would like to ask Ms. McCord, is it fair to say that it
has been the goal of the MVEs to overthrow the U.S. Government?
Ms. McCord. I think that it has been the goal of--I think
being a check on what they perceive as the tyranny of the
state, whether that's state government or Federal Government,
is a common theme among militia and violent extremists. It's
not the only theme, but it's definitely a common theme.
But I want to be clear that we see that at every level of
government. We've seen dramatic plotting and attacks and
militia activity in opposition to county-level public safety
measures, state-level COVID-related public safety measures, and
of course, you know, Federal-level activity, including the
joint session of Congress seeking to certify the election.
So, one of the dangerous things is that these groups make
their own decisions about what they think the Constitution
means, and if they think that what any elected official is
doing doesn't comport with their view of the Constitution and
their own civil rights and civil liberties, then they think
they are empowered to use arms, to take up arms against that.
Ms. Norton. Well, let me move on to Attorney General Grewal
and, again, trying to focus on what it is we are talking about.
In October 2020, Federal law enforcement arrested 13 members of
what are called the Wolverine Watchmen. Now that is a private
militia group in Michigan. They were arrested for plotting to
kidnap and execute Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Attorney General Grewal, did you consider the foiled plot
against Governor Whitmer to be a significant escalation of
militia activity?
Mr. Grewal. I certainly do, Congresswoman. And it obviously
caused us to be on alert as far as protecting other elected
officials in my own state, to do better on monitoring
suspicious activity reporting in our state. So, I certainly saw
that to be a significant escalation when a plot can be so
brazenly attempted to target a governor, a sitting governor of
a state.
Ms. Norton. Well, what Federal resources would your office
have needed to effectively respond to a similar threat and----
Mr. Grewal. Well, I think----
Ms. Norton [continuing]. yes.
Mr. Grewal. Yes, you know, I think, again, New Jersey is a
bit unique in that I have complete criminal jurisdiction, and I
have really strong relationships with our Federal partners
here. And when Parkland happened, as was alluded to earlier in
my testimony, I referenced that for the notion that we didn't
want to see what happened there happen here, which was gaps in
reporting.
So, in the wake of the Parkland shootings, we tightened up
our reporting system. So, any time that there is a suspicious
activity report filed with one of our municipalities, that's
shared at our county level, it's shared at our state level, and
it's shared with our Federal partners. And we followup on all
those leads.
That's why we have a better understanding in my state of
the number of bias incidents that are happening, where they're
happening, and that's why we share that information in real
time. So, policymakers can use it to address concerns in their
municipalities or in their districts. And so, we could use it
to deploy law enforcement resources where we see a problem
escalating.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Here is another example. This is for
Professor Simi.
Following the election, and that is what I am interested in
now--the effect on democratic elections--Three Percenters armed
with semi-automatic rifles surrounded the Arizona state capitol
and election officers to protect vote counting. In Georgia,
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had to be escorted from
his office under armed guard, as militiamen surrounded the
capitol.
Professor Simi, were you surprised by the willingness of
militia networks to target free and fair elections, and how
does militia activity post-election, including January 6,
relate to the militia movement's opposition to civilian
authority in these elections?
Mr. Simi. Thank you for the question.
I wasn't particularly surprised by it, and that was
actually one of my most significant concerns leading up to the
most recent Presidential election would be the use of this kind
of intimidation and threatening behavior on the part of these
types of groups. And so I see this as a substantial kind of
central component to their basically motive for existing, which
is to exert their will and intimidate democratic forces to bend
in their direction and to actually really overcome the
democratic process.
And so this is one of, I think, the most substantial
concerns that we face with these groups, and our tendency to
kind of neglect them is really concerning.
Mr. Raskin. Great. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank
you very much.
Let us see, is Mr. Donalds still with us? OK. I am going to
go to Congresswoman Tlaib, you are recognized for your----
Mr. Donalds. I am here, Mr. Chairman. Still here.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, all right. Mr. Donalds is here. I recognize
you for your five minutes, Mr. Donalds.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And witnesses, thanks
for being here. I do appreciate it.
My first question is pretty simple. For any of the
witnesses who choose to answer, are you guys aware of what is
actually happening in Portland, Oregon, right now?
Anybody can answer. It is an open question. Come on, guys.
Don't be shy. Are you guys aware of what is happening in
Portland, Oregon, right now, or what has happened in Portland,
Oregon, for the last year, basically, with respect to
consistent, repeated attacks, targeting of Federal buildings,
et cetera, and local municipality buildings in the city of
Portland?
Ms. McCord. I'm certainly aware of some of what has
happened in Portland. When you said ``right now,'' I
literally--I did not know if you meant literally right now, and
I've been in this. I have not been monitoring the news. So, I
apologize for not speaking up.
Mr. Donalds. I am sorry. I am good, thanks.
Sorry, I am in a Dick's Sporting Goods with my son.
Explain something to me. Can you guys expound for me what
has actually taken place over the last year in the city of
Portland or in the city of Seattle or in some respects in the
city of Minneapolis over the last year?
Mr. Gonzalez. Congressman, if I can answer, I think that
maybe the difficulty in answering this is that the media has
not been accurately reporting on what has happened in these
cities. So, a lot of people just--a lot of Americans plainly
just do not know.
Mr. Donalds. Well, look, I am going to end my comments
here. I have been listening to the committee for about an hour,
and I think it is important for everybody to recognize that,
yes, what happened on January 6 was a tragedy. The Department
of Justice is currently going through all of the investigations
with everybody that they found that was involved, and they are
continuing to look for new people that were involved.
I totally support them going through this. They should
continue their investigations. People who either through
conspiracy or through actual actions entered the Capitol should
be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is my
belief.
But at the same time, I am a freshman Member. So,
obviously, I didn't know this was the sixth hearing this
committee has had on this subject of domestic terror, white
supremacy, or however you want to call it. But I think it is
important for the Oversight Committee, and this committee in
particular, to actually open up the scope of their
investigations because it is clear, if you actually talk to law
enforcement people in these various communities, that there is
a strain of extremist political violence that is overtaking the
country.
And if you want to talk about people on both sides, let us
go ahead and say that, too, because it does exist. It has been
existing. We can't
[inaudible] since the second it started, but we have to
look at it all together. We can't pick and choose which ones we
want to focus on and which ones we don't want to focus on.
Because while the Department of Justice is actively
investigating what happened in the Capitol building on January
6, like they should be doing and I am glad that they are doing
that, we do have political extreme organizations that have been
consistently attacking law enforcement and Federal buildings
across the United States. And we should be investigating that,
too, with the full force of Congress like we are doing to
people who did perpetrate a frankly heinous attack and a
tragedy on the Capitol on January 6.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Donalds. I recognize Ms. Tlaib
for your five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chair Raskin. Thank you so
much for all the panelists for being here.
I think it is really important to note that this hearing is
supposed to be about white supremacist militias, which everyone
in this room virtually, whether you want to admit it or not,
knows that it is a deadly problem. The fact that some are
trying to shift the focus away from white supremacy to Black
Lives Matter movement is an example of upholding white
supremacy. So, I say enough, and let us focus on this really
important, critical issue.
I would like to zero in on one particularly disturbing
element of law enforcement coordination with militia movement.
It is an organization called Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace
Officers Association. Very, very misleading, OK? We are going
to call them CSPOA for short.
So, CSPOA was founded by the former Arizona sheriff, so-
called Oath Keeper board member named Richard Mack. The
organization coordinates a network of hundreds of what they
call ``constitutional sheriffs''--these are their names--who
claim the power to reject state and Federal laws they consider
to be unconstitutional, outside of our courts, OK?
On its own website, it even claims ``the power of the
sheriff even supersedes the powers of the President.'' An
absolute absurd statement, to say the least. Mack even claims
that over 400 sheriffs participated in a coordinated training
effort that includes at least 265 private sessions per year,
you all.
So, Attorney General, do you know any law enforcement
officials in your state who are associated with this
organization, and would you be concerned if they were?
Mr. Grewal. I do not, Congresswoman, and I would be if they
were. And again, I go back to how New Jersey is different. I
have oversight over all law enforcement, including all of our
chiefs and our sheriff's offices. And so, if something happens
where they're not abiding by the rules we set, the policies
that we have in place, our state's laws, I have the ability to
supersede their authority and take over those departments. And
we've exercised that authority in other instances.
So, I would be incredibly concerned because I think that
undermines public trust in law enforcement, which is something
we're desperately trying to build, which is the cornerstone of
public safety.
Ms. Tlaib. Absolutely. And the CSPOA has a clear link to
white supremacist Oath Keepers. They rallied alongside the Oath
Keepers and other militias in support of Bundy during his 2014
standoff, hosted joint fundraisers, and even in 2019, the Oath
Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was even a featured speaker at
the CSPOA's convention.
Furthermore, leaked documents from the Oath Keepers
revealed that the organization CSPOA is a core component of the
militia's--their program, sheriffs outreach program. Members
are instructed to ask local sheriffs if they would be
interested in hosting a seminar from Sheriff Mack. The Oath
Keepers have advertised CSPOA trainings online as recently as
last year or in 2019.
Ms. McCord, can you briefly explain the ideological link
between CSPOA's views of called ``county supremacy'' and the
militia movement?
Ms. McCord. Yes, I can. Thank you for that question.
Because this is something we've seen is a real problem and
one of the reasons we see so much lack of enforcement at the
local level of state anti-militia laws. Most states--as
Attorney General Grewal has explained, most state attorney
generals, unlike him, do not have general criminal enforcement
authority. So, the enforcement against militia falls on the
local law enforcement, on local elected district attorneys.
So, in places where you have constitutional sheriffs, you
know, in charge of local law enforcement who are oftentimes not
only supportive of the local militia, but sometimes members of
the local militia, sometimes have even advocated for county
recognition of local militias, this is obviously a situation
where we're not going to have enforcement against those
militias.
And we've seen that in Virginia. We've seen that in many
other states by constituents who have reached out to contact my
organization to ask is this legal, is this OK? We've seen--
consistent with that idea that they report only to the
Constitution as they understand it, we've actually seen
advocating for county resolutions that would bar, criminally
bar county officials from enforcing certain new laws. For
example, new gun safety legislation.
So, the constitutional sheriffs movement is a dangerous
movement. It has no really authority under law. It's a made-up
thing, but it has a real impact.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, and Ms. McCord, I really want my colleagues
to hear this because it is--this past year, they actually
opposed COVID-19 public health measures and now advertise a
six-week course in ending ``tyranny and taking down--'' these
are their words--``the deep state.'' So, sheriffs affiliated
with CSPOA have spoken in defense of militia-based terrorists
who has tried to kidnap Governor Whitmer, my own governor, and
even organized civilian posse, you all, which is a nice name
for a lynch mob, in my opinion, to respond to racial justice
protests.
So, I just really want our colleagues to understand this
critically important hearing, that we really need to focus on
this because it is dangerous for all of us to live with these
groups in our backyard.
Thank you so much, and I yield.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you.
You can answer. Was that a question, Ms. Tlaib, or no?
Ms. Tlaib. No, Chairman. I just wanted everyone to know how
dangerous they were. Thank you so much.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your statement.
All right. Now I am going to recognize myself. I think the
ranking member and myself, we have both deferred our questions
to the end here.
So, I want to do some rapid-fire questions here. First,
starting with you, Ms. McCord. You demonstrated some of the
success you have had in using the anti-militia laws, the anti-
insurrection laws, and anti-paramilitary laws at the state
level. Why do we need a Federal law, and what could we do with
that that is not happening now?
Ms. McCord. So, these state level cases have--well, we've
and one recently with success, and one that's pending, and
there is some success historically. But we're really--you know,
it's novel litigation because you're using criminal laws to try
to bring civil enforcement actions, which state by state is
either something that is permissible or is not. And we've seen,
as we've been discussing, that there's a lack of enforcement on
the criminal side by local law enforcement.
I think, importantly to your question, though, these are
not local problems. As we've seen repeatedly, and it's not just
in the last year, but even historically, even if you look back
at the armed standoffs at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon
or in Bunkerville, Nevada, we had militias traveling from
across the country to gather in opposition to the Federal
agents in both of those cases.
We had militias travel--the conspiracy charges against
members of the Oath Keepers who participated in the
insurrection involved people from six different states. So,
this is not a local problem. And as the attorney general has
explained, they're trying to synthesize more information, but
the Federal Government has superior access to that information
and superior ability to share it all the way through the states
and locals.
And so, coming in to fill that gap and, importantly, to
include civil enforcement measures that can really go after the
organizations and not just individuals who commit acts of
violence would allow for dismantling it more effectively and
systemically.
Mr. Raskin. OK. That is a really important answer, and I
thank you for your clarification of that point.
Attorney General and Professor Simi, I want to get your
reaction to something that has been troubling me. In his
opening statement, Mr. Gonzalez wrote, ``Obviously, Black Lives
Matter and Antifa are not the only sources of political
violence in America, although they do represent the majority of
it.''
And I went to a study that I had come across when I was
getting ready for the hearing by the Center for Strategic &
International Studies, a nonpartisan thinktank which said,
``White supremacists, extremist militia members, and other
violent far-right extremists were responsible for 66 percent of
domestic terrorist attacks and plots in 2020, roughly
consistent with their share in other recent years.'' And this
is consistent with what we have been told by the FBI Director
and Department of Homeland Security.
That is two-thirds of all instances of violent domestic
terror incidents. And I don't know why people seem to feel like
if we are pointing out extremist activity by violent rightwing
groups, they have got to somehow say, well, Antifa did this or
whatever. We are trying to deal with a real security problem
that is confronting state legislatures, the U.S. Congress as
recently as January, and other institutions in the country.
Again, there was a claim that 25 Americans have been killed
because of ``a period of instability instigated by Black Lives
Matter.'' Well, the Washington Post reviewed 27 deaths that
were allegedly linked to last summer's protests and found that
when a suspect was identified, they were almost never linked to
Black Lives Matter. In many cases, the violence was
precipitated by far-right extremist provocateurs associated
with groups like the Boogaloo Bois or militiamen like Kyle
Rittenhouse.
So, and one other study I found from the Armed Conflict
Location and Event Data Project said that 93 percent of Black
Lives Matter demonstrations were peaceful and that when
violence occurred, it was isolated, confined to specific
blocks, and again was subject to that kind of the infiltration
of provocateurs.
In any event, Attorney General, let me start with you. What
do you make of the claim from your experience that Black Lives
Matter or Antifa make up the majority of political violence in
this country or in your state, and what is wrong with
interjecting these kinds of claims when we are trying to
seriously study the problem of racist, violent white supremacy
in the country?
Mr. Grewal. The problem is that it's distracting, Chairman,
and the other problem is that in my experience in New Jersey,
it's completely inaccurate. Like other states--in fact, we're
the most densely populated state, 9 million residents, one of
the most diverse. We have had a year's worth of protests just
like every other state in the country. We had the Movement for
Black Lives take to the streets in New Jersey, but our
experience was completely different. We had maybe a handful of
arrests, but 99.9 percent of those protests were peaceful.
We had law enforcement officers marching with protesters
because we've worked to build trust between law enforcement and
community. We had community partners helping us keep our cities
safe. We had thousands of people during the height of these
protests protesting not too far from where I am in Newark, and
it was peaceful. It was community safety partners helping law
enforcement. It was us leveraging the relationships that we had
developed throughout the last number of years to make sure that
those protests resolved peacefully.
And the other thing is in our experience, we engaged the
protesters, and we listened to them. We acknowledged the
shortcomings that they identified in our law enforcement
practices, and we've worked with community members to improve
them. You can't improve police-community relations without
engaging the police and without engaging the community.
So, we used the whole summer to sit down and have listening
sessions in the midst of COVID, many of them virtually. But
again, we didn't see that violence in my state.
And I think another reason we didn't see that violence in
my state is because of those commonsense gun safety laws that I
talked about. We don't have open carry. It's very difficult to
get a carry permit in our state. You can't get just show up to
our statehouse protest or counter-protest in an armed way. We
didn't see that militia-type presence that Professor McCord was
talking about at our BLM protests.
So, again, it's distracting. I have a hate problem in my
state, 1,400 incidents. The majority of them, 60 percent, anti-
Black racist incidents last year, and we have an escalation and
a radicalization problem that I'm afraid of with our young
people. So, that's what I'm trying to stop, and that's what I
want to focus on.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Attorney General. And Dr. Simi, you
can answer my final question, too.
Mr. Simi. OK, thank you for the question.
So, we're talking about violent extremism, and we talked
about violence. We need to think about what does that mean
exactly? Certainly one of the most important indicators of
violence would be fatalities.
So, if you were to look at, for example, the Anti-
Defamation League's data on this, this idea that Black Lives
Matter and/or Antifa are committing more violence is certainly
not consistent with what we know about fatalities, at least as
the data that's collected by the Anti-Defamation League and one
of the most significant trainers of law enforcement across the
country on these issues. So, that just doesn't seem to be borne
out in that respect.
Another issue here to consider is that we are dealing with
a perceptual bias problem. And so, the attorney general
mentioned the distraction. Sometimes it's intentional.
Sometimes it's unintentional.
But in any case, when the effort to discuss militias and
white supremacist extremism is consistently met with ``what
about so-and-so,'' it is a distraction, but it also reflects
this I think fairly deeply entrenched perceptual bias. And we
need to root that out in addition to dealing with the type of
extremism we've been talking about today.
Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you very much.
I am going to introduce into the record an article that
just came out of great relevance to our hearing today, which
says ``Nevada County GOP Canceled Meeting Amid Fear of Proud
Boy Insurgency,'' and there were threats of the Proud Boys to
this Republican meeting.
Mr. Raskin. And obviously, both parties were targeted on
January 6 at the RNC and the DNC with explosive devices. So, I
don't see any reason why we should think of this as some kind
of, you know, partisan tit-for-tat where we have got to point
at other sides. I don't identify anybody here with the violent
militias and the movements of violent white supremacy that we
are talking about.
Congressman Sessions, I don't know if you had any final
words you wanted to add today?
Mr. Sessions. Chairman, thank you very much.
I would just like to thank our witnesses, who have taken
time to not only properly prepare, but also to prescribe their
viewpoints on sheets of paper that would allow us an
opportunity to really drill down on some of the facts of the
case.
I think all four of our witnesses presented information
that was pertinent to the needs of this committee and I think
overwhelmingly perhaps the viewpoint that we have got to work
together if we are going to stop this. It does make a
difference, and working together means that we not just find
common ground, but that we find that violence is what we are
against.
We are against extremism, and we would be against the use
of force. We brought in other ideas today, as others have,
about perhaps religion in this also, religion, that might take
place against people of Jewish content and faith. Perhaps we
have other ideas about things that are violent, and I just
think that we should stand together and say we are against use
of force. We are against violence. We are against any group of
people, whether they are official or nonofficial, using their
ideas and ideals to overcome this country.
I find it very interesting that--and it is a longer debate.
It is just a longer debate, but that there would be people who
might be considered dangerous to this country because they were
``anti-government,'' but others can show up and be anti-
capitalism and not be considered a threat to this country.
And it is staggering to me because, as I have told you
during my time--my dad's time as FBI Director, there were large
numbers of people that were really anti-IRS. They did not like
the tax code that we had. They were violent. They killed a
Federal judge during a period of time several years ago.
And whether it is anti-IRS, whether it is anti-Federal
judges or Federal Government, whether it is some things that
ride the view of economics, I think that we need to understand
that the basis of what makes this country work is rule of law
and avoiding extremism.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for trying to
work to the middle, work to the middle of ideas, but I think we
have got to acknowledge that whether you are anti-capitalism or
whether you are anti-Jewish, to use violence is something that
we should all be against. Use of force and violence as an
outcome is a danger to not just keeping our country safe, but
the individuals who find themselves somewhere in the middle of
that.
So, I want to thank you and our witnesses. Thanks very
much.
Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Mr. Sessions, for your
thoughtful and perceptive remarks there.
And I guess I would just close by underscoring the public
service that all of our witnesses have done today. We need to
remember that the militias that are referred to in the
Constitution are those that are authorized and well regulated
by the Government, not those that some people just declare to
be a militia in order to engage in vigilante action against
other citizens.
And so, there is no constitutional protection for people
taking up arms against the Government or taking up arms against
fellow citizens or appointing themselves police officers who
can go around and enforce the law on their own. That cuts
against everything we know about the Supremacy Clause and the
idea that Congress owes it to the people to guarantee a
republican form of government to the people of all of the
states. And as much as I love the GOP, that is not a capital
``R'' Republican, that is a small ``r,'' a republican
representative form of government, a civilian form of
government for all of the people.
So, we will work with all of these great witnesses going
forward to see whether, indeed, there is a place for Federal
legislation in the field. And members have an opportunity to
introduce additional statements if they have any, and we will
make sure that those become part of the record.
And I want to thank all of you for coming, and I want to
commend my colleagues for participating.
And members have five legislative days within which to
submit any additional written questions for--to the witnesses,
and submit them to the chair.
And I am submitting, finally, a document I have received
from the Southern Poverty Law Center, their testimony.
Mr. Raskin. And if there is nothing else, this hearing is
adjourned.
Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]