In other words you are saying it is more justifiable to shoot a congress person or a judge than a bystander?
I believe he meant that it is less reprehensible and more understandable (not justifiable), from his radical anarchist perspective. From a standard libertarian perspective, one might say rather that most politicians are of a sort that it would be more understandable why certain folks would be pissed off enough to blow their tops and try and eliminate them, but understandable is not justification. Justification for shooting someone is only in actual imminent self-defense. You must understand the difference between someone saying X was justified and X's actions were understandable. The latter simply means that it was predictable based on available facts.
If the Godfather sends out his goons to all the local businesses threatening to break people's legs if they don't pay for their "protection" services and garbage pickup, it's predictable that lots of folks would be angry, and some angry enough to seek out the Godfather to do him in, even though that would not be justified morally or criminally (Although, shooting the goons in self-defense would be, should they actually attempt to carry out their threat).
Not all politicians, however, are like the Godfather, since some of them are actually working to place government back into its constitutional chains. At least that's the standard libertarian view, but the radical anarchist view would be that ALL politicians are equal to the Godfather, and therefore it is equally understandable (though still not justifiable) that one of their victims might to seek to do them physical harm at some point. It would also be less reprehensible for said victim to do harm to the Godfather than to do harm to an innocent bystander, which is also what Barak said.
Barak is a radical anarchist of the anarcho-capitalist bent.
Barak is a [bleep]' fruitcake, and you gladly go right along behind him down the rabbit hole.
