Shocking Ashli Babbitt Documents



[INSIDE JW]

Judicial Watch Reveals DOJ Memo Declining Prosecution of Babbitt’s
Shooter

[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch uncovered more shocking evidence about the shooting
death of Ashli Babbitt even as the Pelosi rump 1/6 operation makes a
mockery of the system of government with its kangaroo court
“hearings.”

We uncovered 102 pages
[[link removed]]
of
records from the Department of Justice related to the shooting of
January 6 protestor Ashli Babbitt that include a memo recommending
“that the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Columbia declined for criminal prosecution the fatal shooting of Ashli
McEntee [Babbitt],” also noting that the shooter, U.S. Capitol
Police Lt. Michael Byrd, “did not create a police report or
documents” related to the shooting of Babbitt.

The documents also reveal that in the press release announcing the
decision not to prosecute Byrd for the killing of Babbitt the DOJ
replaced the words “group” and “crowd” with the word “mob”
several times.

The unarmed Babbitt was shot and killed
[[link removed]]
as she climbed through a broken interior window in the United States
Capitol. She was a 14-year Air Force veteran. The identity of the
shooter was kept secret by Congress, the Justice Department, and DC
police for eight months until Byrd went public
[[link removed]]
to try to defend his killing of Babbitt.

We filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia after the Executive Office
for United States Attorneys, the Civil Rights Division, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (all components of the Justice
Department) failed to provide the records responsive to our April 14,
2021, and May 20, 2021, FOIA requests for records related to
Babbitt’s death (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-02462)).

The records contain the prosecution declination memorandum
[[link removed]]
justifying the decision not to prosecute Byrd.

The “Overview and Recommendation” section reads as follows:

This memorandum recommends that the United States Attorney’s Office
for the District of Columbia decline for criminal prosecution the
fatal shooting of Ashli McEntee.

***

This declination is based on a review of law enforcement and civilian
eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, recorded radio communications,
cell phone footage, MPD reports, forensic reports, and the autopsy
report for Ms. McEntee. After a thorough review of the facts and
circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Byrd violated Ms.
McEntee’s civil rights by willfully using more force than was
reasonably necessary, or was not acting in self-defense or the defense
of others.
The memo details:

Once the demonstrators broke the glass, Lieutenant Byrd took up a
tactical position to the immediate right of the barricaded entry
doors, [Capitol Police Officer Reggie Tyson] took up a tactical
position behind Lieutenant Byrd on the right side behind the third
pillar and Sergeant McKenna took up a tactical position behind Officer
Tyson and behind the fourth pillar on the right side of the Speakers
Lobby.

***

All three officers had their service pistols drawn, pointed them in
the direction of the barricaded entry doors, and repeatedly instructed
the ‘mob’ to get back. The ‘mob’ of demonstrators ignored the
officers’ commands and continued to break the glass on the doors in
their attempt to breach the Speakers Lobby. Suddenly, Ashli McEntee
began to crawl through one of the doors where the glass was already
broken out. As Ms. McEntee was climbing through the door, Lieutenant
Byrd stepped forward from his tactical position towards Ms. McEntee
and fired one round from his service pistol striking Ms. McEntee in
her left shoulder, just below her clavicle. Ms. McEntee then fell back
from the doorway and onto the floor.
Regarding possible closed-circuit television footage, the memo
notes: “There are several USCP operated Closed-Circuit Television
Video (CCTV) cameras inside of the United States Capitol Building.
However, there were no CCTV cameras observed or located in the
Speaker's Lobby area.”

In a section of the memo titled “USCP Lieutenant Michael Byrd,”
the memo notes: “He [Byrd] did not create any police reports or
documents relating to the incident, and did not provide an official
statement regarding use of force” though he did provide a voluntary
“debrief” and walk-through of the scene with his lawyer. A
footnote details that: “During the debrief of Lieutenant Byrd, he
did recall writing a few sentences on an evidence bag the evening of
January 6, 2021, at the request of a crime scene officer. To date, the
bag has not been located by USCP or MPD.”

The memo reports:

Lieutenant Byrd heard glass breaking and saw some of the items used to
barricade the doors being pushed down. Lieutenant Byrd continued to
tell the rioters to "get back, get back!" Lieutenant Byrd then saw a
rioter with a backpack on start to climb through one of the broken
glass doors. Lieutenant Byrd saw the rioter "as a threat," so he
stepped forward from his tactical position and fired one round at the
rioter. The rioter fell back out of the opening and Lieutenant Byrd
eventually stepped back into the seated area of the Speaker's Lobby
before confirming to other USCP officers that arrived on the scene
that he was the one that fired his service weapon.
The memo notes that security staffing on January 6 was less than
half the usual amount due to COVID-19:

Lieutenant Byrd did agree to participate with his counsel, Mark
Schamel, in a voluntary debrief and walk-through of the scene on
January 29, 2021 … Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal
staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant
Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that
morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision
that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear.
In a section titled, “Use of Force History,” it is noted that,
“Lieutenant Byrd had one prior use of force matter, that was
originally sustained by USCP, but after Lt. Byrd appealed, he was
found not guilty by the Disciplinary Review Board.”

In a section titled “Recommendation,” the memo details:

This matter does not constitute a prosecutable violation of the
federal criminal civil rights statutes or the District of Columbia
homicide statutes. To show a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the
applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, the Government must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer willfully used more
force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. ‘The
“reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from
the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with
the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’ Graham v Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396
(1989).

***

Because Ms. McEntee was an active participant in a ‘mob’ that had
just illegally entered the Capitol building, and then broke out the
glass doors and removed barricades to forcefully gain entry into the
Speaker’s Lobby, there is insufficient evidence to refute Lieutenant
Byrd’s fear for his life or the life of others at the time he
discharged his weapon. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he willfully deprived Ms. McEntee
of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States
of America. Accordingly I recommend declination of this matter.
The records include a draft version of the April 14, 2021, Justice
Department press release
[[link removed]]
announcing their decision not to prosecute Byrd for the killing of
Babbitt, the authors replaced the word “crowd” with the word
“mob” five times in describing the January 6 protestors.

The documents also include charts
[[link removed]]
of January 6 investigations and targets. For one of the
investigations, it is noted that a New York Times reporter is a
“CW” [confidential witness]. Another notation tied to “pipe
bombs” notes that a “geo fence” request was made to Google.

Previously, we uncovered records from the DC Metropolitan Police
showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon
[[link removed]]
in Babbitt’s
hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught
afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t recall hearing any
verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt. The records include internal
communications about Byrd’s case and a crime scene examination
report. Investigators who wrote the January 6, 2021, Metro PD Death
Report
[[link removed]]
for Babbitt (identified as Ashli Elizabeth McEntee-Babbitt Pamatian)
note that the possible Manner of Death was “Homicide (Police
Involved Shooting).”

These records show that Lt. Byrd was given special treatment by the
Biden DOJ and that there was a miscarriage of justice in the
half-baked shooting death investigation of Ashli Babbitt. Lt. Byrd,
who works for Congress, shot an unarmed woman for no good reason. I
suspect that this unjustified shooting isn’t of much interest to the
Pelosi rump January 6 committee.

These revelations are the latest in our comprehensive, independent
investigation into the January 6 disturbance:

* February 2022: We filed an opposition
[[link removed]]
to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down our federal
lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police
department, Congress argues
[[link removed]]
that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public
interest in their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents
citizens from suing for their release.
* November 2021: We released
[[link removed]]
multiple audio
[[link removed]],
visual
[[link removed]]
and photo records
[[link removed]]
from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about Babbitt's death. The
records include a cell phone video
[[link removed]]
of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of Byrd.
* Also in November 2021: we – in its FOIA lawsuit asking for
records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer
of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland and
Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021 – told a federal court
that the FBI may have violated law
[[link removed]]
in its January 6 probes.

Frankly, given all our historic works and finds, perhaps Judicial
Watch should be conducting January 6 hearings!

JUDICIAL WATCH EXPOSES BIDEN HOMELAND SECURITY’S QUESTIONABLE
TERRORISM BULLETIN

We don’t trust the Biden bureaucracy to apolitically define
“domestic terrorism,” and we’re launching an investigation into
its latest attempt to label those who oppose its policies as
“terrorists.” Our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog shows we are on the
case
[[link removed]].


A new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bulletin
[[link removed]]
warning of a “heightened threat environment” claims domestic
violent extremists have expressed grievances related to their
perception that the U.S. government is unwilling or unable to secure
the U.S.-Mexico border. Therefore, the dispatch says, the domestic
extremists “have called for violence to stem the flow of
undocumented migrants to the United States.” Issued by the
agency’s National Terrorism Advisory System, the notice goes on to
say that there “is increased risk of domestic violent extremists
using changes in border security-related policies and/or enforcement
mechanisms to justify violence against individuals, such as minorities
and law enforcement officials involved in the enforcement of border
security.”

The document lists other threats as well but fails to reveal where the
information, or intelligence, comes from. Judicial Watch has launched
an investigation to uncover records that formed the foundation for the
decision to issue the warning as well as the records that substantiate
the warning. Within hours of the bulletin’s release, Judicial Watch
filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with DHS for the
files that could provide some answers. Not surprisingly, the new
terrorism advisory promotes the agency’s controversial
misinformation campaign, which was technically suspended after major
backlash over government overreach. A DHS panel known as the
Disinformation Governance Board was supposed to combat disinformation
and, though it was officially dismantled and its director resigned,
the message remains. “The continued proliferation of false or
misleading narratives regarding current events could reinforce
existing personal grievances or ideologies, and in combination with
other factors, could inspire individuals to mobilize to violence,”
this week’s terrorism advisory states.

The three-page bulletin also warns about abortion and election-related
violence. It says that those in favor of and opposed to abortion
rights have encouraged violence against government, religious and
reproductive healthcare personnel and facilities as well as those with
opposing ideologies. “As the United States enters mid-term election
season this year, we assess that calls for violence by domestic
violent extremists directed at democratic institutions, political
candidates, party offices, election events, and election workers will
likely increase,” DHS states, adding that it expects the “threat
environment to become more dynamic as several high-profile events
could be exploited to justify acts of violence against a range of
possible targets.” The targets could include public gatherings,
faith-based institutions, schools racial and religious minorities,
government facilities and personnel, U.S critical infrastructure, the
media, and perceived ideological opponents.

“Threat actors have recently mobilized to violence due to factors
such as personal grievances, reactions to current events, and
adherence to violent extremist ideologies, including racially or
ethnically motivated or anti-government/antiauthority violent
extremism,” according to the DHS terrorism bulletin. “Foreign
adversaries—including terrorist organizations and nation state
adversaries—also remain intent on exploiting the threat environment
to promote or inspire violence, sow discord, or undermine U.S.
democratic institutions.” DHS discloses that the primary threat of
mass casualty violence in the U.S. stems from lone offenders and small
groups motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and/or personal
grievances.

The agency created after 9/11 to safeguard America, writes that it is
responding to the threats by collaborating with partners across every
level of government, the private sector and in local communities. Some
of the so-called partnerships—such as information sharing with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—make sense but others appear
questionable. For instance, DHS lists a Nonprofit Security Grant
Program that provided over $250 million in funding to support
“target hardening and other physical security enhancements to
non-profit organizations at high risk of terrorist attack.” The
agency also spent at least $77 million on preventing, preparing for,
protecting against, and responding to threats via a special Homeland
Security Grant Program. DHS’s Center for Prevention Programs and
Partnerships awarded about $20 million to train and educate
“stakeholders” on how to identify indicators of radicalization to
violence, where to seek help and the resources that are available to
prevent targeted violence and terrorism. Judicial Watch is
investigating what exactly these programs do with our taxpayer dollars
and how the partnerships function.

SUSSMANN TRIAL EXPOSES CLINTON, FBI ABUSE OF TRUMP

John Durham surely wishes he could have had a better venue than the
District of Columbia when he put Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer
on trial for lying to the FBI. The acquittal nevertheless further
exposed Hillary and her FBI partners as corrupt. Our chief
investigative reporter, Micah Morrison, reports
[[link removed]]
on the
latest in Judicial Watch’s _Investigative Bulletin_.

Hillary did it. And the FBI helped.

That’s the Occam’s Razor conclusion behind court action in
Washington last week that added new details to a growing mountain of
evidence about the true forces behind the sensational “Russia
collusion” allegations that nearly brought down the Trump
presidency.

John Durham, the special counsel appointed to investigate the Russia
mess, lost his case
[[link removed]]
in a DC courtroom. The jury acquitted Washington attorney Michael
Sussmann, a DC insider with deep connections to the Democratic Party
and the intelligence community, on the only charge Durham managed to
bring: a single false-statements count alleging that Sussmann lied to
the FBI when he brought it allegations of a link between Trump and
Moscow’s Putin-connected Alfa Bank.

Why did the DC jury acquit Sussmann? As Judicial Watch President Tom
Fitton tweeted
[[link removed]]
last
week—politics in the heavily Democratic district aside—the
“simplest answer is the evidence— which suggested the Obama FBI
leadership knew full well the Clinton gang was behind the Alfa
Bank-Russia smears of Trump. Durham tried to pretend Obama FBI was a
victim. It was a co-conspirator.”

Sussmann’s defense relied on the preposterous claim that the
attorney—a former Justice Department cybersecurity prosecutor,
lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, and adviser to the
Clinton presidential campaign—was merely acting as a “good
citizen” when he sought an urgent meeting with FBI General Counsel
James Baker to pass along the Alfa Bank tip. Sussmann came to the
meeting highly prepared. His indictment
[[link removed]]
notes that he offered Baker “three ‘white papers’ along with
data files allegedly containing evidence supporting the existence of
this purported secret communications channel” between Trump and Alfa
Bank.

Baker knew Sussmann well. It emerged at trial that Sussmann did not
even need a pass to get into the highly secured FBI headquarters for
his meeting with Baker—he already had one. Evidence also showed that
Baker, tasking FBI subordinates with investigating the Sussmann tip,
withheld Sussmann’s name—a suggestion that maybe not everyone at
FBI HQ would view an allegation from a DNC insider on the eve of a
presidential election with such credulity. In trial testimony and
earlier interviews, Baker suffered convenient memory lapses and
uncertainty about what Sussman actually said, opening a path of
reasonable doubt for the jurors.

There’s no doubt, however, that one of Sussmann’s clients was the
Clinton presidential campaign, and Durham established that it was
deeply involved in the Alfa Bank smear. Durham showed that the Alfa
Bank allegations were cooked up by Clinton campaign allies and
operatives, including the investigative firm Fusion-GPS—the key
force behind another sensational Clinton smear, the Steele Dossier.
Prosecutors introduced evidence
[[link removed]]
showing Sussmann billed many hours to his law firm for meetings with
Clinton campaign officials on Alfa Bank.

In bombshell testimony
[[link removed]],
former Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook said Mrs. Clinton herself
authorized giving the Alfa smear information to the media. Under oath,
Mook described a conversation with Clinton about the Alfa Bank
material, telling her, “hey, we have this and want to share it with
a reporter.”

Mook added, “she agreed to that.”

Not only did Clinton agree, she enthusiastically supported the story
when it was published
[[link removed]]
on the left-wing website, Slate. She tweeted
[[link removed]]
a link to the piece with the comment, “it’s time for Trump to
answer serious questions about his ties to Russia.”

Campaign adviser Jake Sullivan—now President Biden’s national
security adviser—chimed in, issuing a statement
[[link removed]]
declaring, “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald
Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server
linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”

Calling it a “secret hotline,” Sullivan prodded the FBI, saying he
could “only assume federal authorities will now explore this direct
connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe
into Russia’s meddling in our elections.”

The bogus story appeared just nine days before the election. October
Surprise: mission accomplished.

Later this year, Durham will take a closer look at that other infamous
smear, the Steele Dossier. Durham indicted an alleged key source of
the dossier, Ivan Danchenko, on five counts of lying to the FBI.
Danchenko has pleaded not guilty. It seems likely Mrs. Clinton, her
associates, and the FBI will play a central role in that prosecution,
too.
Until next week…






[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]