Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ashli Babbitt Shooting: Murder? Negligent Homicide? Perhaps Tucker’s Special Will Shed Some Light
Recently I opened a post, entitled “The Mindless, Heartless Execution of Ashli Babbitt”, with the following words:
I am haunted by the murder of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran who was almost certainly one of the very few citizens in America history to be executed for trespassing- even in the “hallowed” halls of our National Capitol, already soiled and profaned by the corruption which sluices through its spaces like the sewage it is.
In the intervening months, there have been a number of developments which have been even more haunting and, to say the very least, troubling, not least of which the shooter finally came out from under the protective shroud which had been placed over him by the “leadership” in Congress, i.e., Her Royal Highness Speaker Pelosi, and the Capitol Police, to appear on national television in an attempt, abortive in my humble opinion, to defend his action in fatally shooting at point blank range a small, 110 pound, unarmed, 14-year female veteran of the United States Air Force.
After Lt. Michael Byrd made his appearance, which to me as a former trial lawyer seemed to be a lawyer’s nightmare in view of some of the critical admissions he made, a variety of opinions were expressed as to whether his use of excessive force – the most excessive force imaginable, one must also observe – was or could be justified. Based on my prior writing, to which I refer by reference, as I thought then, and feel even more strongly now, that there were no justifications whatsoever for this police officer to kill a person who was, at most, a trespasser.
However, what prompts me to record these additional observations was an appearance on the October 19 episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” by Congressman Troy Nehls of Texas. This gentleman was present in the House Chamber at the time Ashli Babbitt was shot and was a County Sheriff in Texas for eight years and in law enforcement in various capacities for 30 years. As he noted in the interview, he has had extensive experience with use-of-force issues— he said he had Deputy Sheriffs who had shot and killed people and Deputies who had been shot themselves.
Importantly, from the standpoint of the January 6 “First Amendment protest” (not his words nor mine, but those used by the DC Medical Examiner in his report finding that Ashli Babbitt died as a result of “homicide”) he was one of the five Republican designees appointed by Leader McCarthy to be on the purely objective, non-partisan, “only the facts, Ma’am” Jan 6 Committee which was scotched by Speaker Pelosi when it started showing signs of actually being those things.
He said after that appointment, pursuant to the role he expected to play on the committee, he spent untold hours going through documents pertaining to the Jan 6 protest. He said one of his first impressions was that it should have never happened, in the first place, as the Capitol Police had all the intelligence it needed to know that extra security forces would be needed for what clearly should have been expected. Then, he said he had talked to law enforcement officers all over the country and every single one of them thought there was no justification whatsoever for the excessive use of force used by Lt. Byrd in shooting Ashli Babbitt. He then followed with this forceful and emphatic statement:
“It was murder.”
As a cautionary note, in view of the strong opinions held by those on all sides of this issue, I have made a good-faith effort to quote Rep. Nehls as closely as possible but have been unable to locate an actual transcript of his remarks on the show. However, for those who wish to check it out, the entire interview is accessible on foxnation.com, a subscription service, under the “Primetime” tab.
For another viewpoint, it is helpful to consult the observations of Prof. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University in an article entitled “Justified Shooting or Fair Game?” which can be accessed here. In doing so, it should be noted that Prof. Turley, while fairly consistently a neutral and very learned commentator, is certainly no member of the right or supporter of President Trump, which makes his comments all the more valuable on this issue. Critically reviewing the actions of the shooter, he said:
Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
Then, he examines the logical implications which could —should— follow from the mindset which excused Lt. Byrd from any criminal charge whatsoever, implications, as Prof. Turley, observes, have been steadfastly avoided in most “enlightened” circles:
Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.
In his conclusion, Prof. Turley illustrates the fairness of his examination of this killing by noting his revulsion of the Jan 6 protest but also his dismay at this bizarre outcome in refusing to charge Lt. Byrd:
In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.” To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her killing.
Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot (along with those who fueled the unhinged anger that led to the violence) as the desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use of lethal force, particularly against unarmed suspects. The “job” of officers, to which Byrd referred, often demands a courage and restraint that few of us could muster. As shown by every other officer that day, it is a job that is often defined by abstinence from rather than application of lethal force. It was the rest of the force who refrained from using lethal force, despite being attacked, that were the extraordinary embodiments of the principles governing their profession.
In an attempt to be “fair and balanced” I did a search for analyses defending Lt. Byrd’s action in killing Ashli Babbitt and one of the most extensively researched articles I found appeared at lawfareblog.com under the title “Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt”; it can be accessed here.
The authors, who represent themselves to have extensive law enforcement experience in use-of-force issues, lay out a very thorough analysis of the main test which is to be used in determining the propriety of lethal force as laid out in the leading Supreme Court cases of Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner:
Drawing from common law, the policing community has defined a threat as “imminent” when someone has the ability, opportunity and intention to cause the specific harm at issue (here, death or serious physical injury). “Ability” refers to the person’s capacity to cause the identified harm and requires asking whether the person is physically capable, at the time, of inflicting the harm. For example, a person holding a knife can use it as a weapon, so the individual has the ability to cause serious injuries or death. “Opportunity” refers to the subject’s proximity to a potential target and requires asking whether anyone is vulnerable, at the time, to the specific harm. For example, a person with a knife who is standing immediately next to an officer has both the ability and the opportunity to attack the officer with it, while an individual with a knife who is 50 feet away has the ability, but not the opportunity, to do so. “Intent” refers to the person’s apparent desire to cause the identified harm and requires asking whether the person wants, at the time, to cause the harm. For example, a person who is physically close to an officer while cutting cucumbers with a knife in the kitchen might have the ability and opportunity, but not the intention, to cause death or serious physical injury.
They then conclude:
So, considering these three factors, could a reasonable officer in Byrd’s position have believed that Babbitt had the ability, opportunity, and intention to kill or seriously injure someone? Based on the limited information currently available, we have serious reservations about whether that question can be answered in the affirmative, especially with regard to “ability” and “opportunity.”
That conclusion fits like a glove (shades of OJ) with the view of many who have devoted time and work to trying to make sense of the action of the Department of [In]Justice deciding to let the killer skate. However, the authors then proceed to a quite creative argument claiming that, in this particular instance, the Courts should not follow settled law but apply some kind of ready-made exception designed for this case and this case only. For the complete treatment of this “new” law, I refer you to the full article, but here is their conclusion:
The invasion of the U.S. Capitol by a mob of insurrectionists—hundreds of whom have been criminally charged—shocked the nation and the world. Although we must wait for the results of a comprehensive investigation before coming to any definitive conclusions, the Capitol Police may have been handicapped by failures in intelligence-gathering, in risk assessment, in planning, and in implementation. There is no doubt that many—too many—Capitol officers went “to hell and back,” as Officer Michael Farone described in his testimony.
The politics of the situation have, unfortunately, colored the public response. And they have done so in an unusual way. With some notable exceptions, Republicans have downplayed the severity of the threat, and Democrats have defended the police actions. That is particularly true with regard to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.
In this post, we attempted to bring a balanced perspective to the shooting, applying the now-familiar constitutional standard that regulates the use of deadly force. The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd’s decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat. To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts. But there are enough facts to conclude that even if Byrd violated Babbitt’s Fourth Amendment rights, it is highly unlikely that he could be ethically charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime.
Those conclusions, tentative as they are, assume that courts will apply the legal rules that usually apply to police shootings. Given the unique context present here, though, we would not be surprised if that turned out not to be the case.
As alluded to in the title of this post, Tucker Carlson announced yesterday his series on Fox Nation will commence a three-part series Monday, November 1, “Patriot Purge”, which will attempt a detailed dissection of what actually happened on January 6, as opposed to the official narrative – which, as many of us know, simply cannot be questioned under any circumstances— and the mere announcement of its airing in the future has caused many on the left, in the media and perhaps more than others, in the weird world of the Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney, to have the vapors. Julie Kelly, investigative reporter with AmericanGreatness.com, who has become the most effective and knowledgeable reporter on the January 6 protest and its aftermath, just published a piece illustrating this hysteria in “The Freak-Out Over Tucker’s January 6 Documentary Begins”, here. Her article contains some truly hilarious examples of prominent people going ballistic over a series they cannot possibly have any conceivable notion of what is in it and, while I commend the entire piece to your review, here is just one of them:
Philip Bump, a national correspondent for the Washington Post, immediately banged out a 1,200-word diatribe about a film he has never watched. Carlson made the movie, Bump concluded, to “prove he’s not a white nationalist,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Bump ironically condemns the unseen documentary as an “angry muddle” while making his own angry muddle against Carlson, Fox News, January 6 protesters and a few people highlighted in the trailer, including Revolver’s Darren Beattie, the man who blew the lid off possible FBI involvement in the chaos.
“Carlson wants to elevate the idea—the surreal idea, the deranged idea—that the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was fomented in whole or in part by the government so that it could crack down on the political right,” Bump sneered.
I can only note that in my humble opinion, sneering is what the members of the far-left, of which the Washington Post is the official press outlet, do the best and which seems to be their answer to most issues confronting the nation today.
Wrapping up, I have just viewed a one-hour video interview of Julie Kelly by Dinesh D’Souza covering many of the issues raised by the January 6 protest, the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, and the abhorrent way the government is treating the defendants, some of whom did not even physically enter the building that day. It can be accessed here, and I cannot recommend it too highly for those who really want the full story-at least until Monday!
God Bless America!
Published in General
I asked for but still have not gotten any direction to review the results of the investigation.
Dear Jim,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I read your post again, and reviewed the articles from Jonathon Turley. I did not see a link to the interview with D’Nesh D’Souza, but I have watched a couple of his movies, and his recent behavior show him to be an unreliable individual.
I am so glad that you have been to the Reagan Presidential Library. It is a very special place. I hope and pray that a new Reagan emerges in the near future.
I am still actively practicing law and am limited in my ability to review proposed materials. I feel a little out-numbered here at Ricochet.
It appears to me that the tragic death of Ashli Babbitt is being used to divert attention from the Capitol Riot on January 6th. Lt. Michael Bryd was a 28 year veteran of the Capitol Police; if memory serves, this was the first time he ever discharged his weapon in the line of duty. The August 26, 2021 Report of NBC News states the following at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736:
About 60 to 80 House members and staffers were holed up inside, and it was Byrd’s job to protect them.
As rioters rampaged through the Capitol, Byrd and a few other officers of the U.S. Capitol Police set up a wall of furniture outside the doors.
“Once we barricaded the doors, we were essentially trapped where we were,” Byrd said in an exclusive interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt, speaking publicly for the first time since the riot. “There was no way to retreat. No other way to get out.
“If they get through that door, they’re into the House chamber and upon the members of Congress,” added Byrd, who gave NBC News permission to use his name after authorities had declined to release it.
One aspect of the Trump Presidency and Post-Presidency is that there are a firehose of allegations made. It feels like everytime one of them is rebutted, three or four more arise in its place. It is exhausting to try to run these down.
I do take some umbrage at your phrase “Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney.” Liz Cheney voted for Trump and supported him throughout his presidency. She (and Chris Christie) broke with Trump only after the 2020 election and the January 6th Capitol Riot. Liz Cheney is a “NAT” or “Never Again Trumper” not a “Never Trumper.”
That’s the best I can do for now.
Gary
That sounds like more than enough justification for any of the number of police in that area – who didn’t seem all that alarmed at what was happening – to restrain her, and others if necessary; but nobody needed to be shot/killed.
This guy may have never pulled his gun before either, but if he had shot he should be up on murder charges; and either way he should not be wearing any kind of uniform or carrying any type of weapon.
https://youtu.be/-r3Qn4AF9nA– let’s talk after you review it. All the best, Jim
That’s actually called an EJK, and extra-judicial killing.
Perhaps a person can consider the police suicides to be either simply coincidence, or else the officers’ reaction to exceptional emotional stress of seeing the Capitol desecrated, or else merely extra-judicial killings and unfortunate collateral damage in maintaining the necessary official fiction. What was the January 6th incursion about?
Political Affiliation. Political affiliation explains more than simple quantities of wealth or positions of power. Political affiliation is what distinguishes how people with similar wealth or power will end up treated differently.
Case in point in this thread, Ashli Babbitt vs a similar unarmed person in the mind of a certain family lawyer who shall remain nameless.
Apparently you claim it back as soon as you get up.
Has Gary Robbins just outed himself? I’d say again, but some things speak more clearly than others.
Why assume that? The NYT’s purpose was to justify the shooting. Why would they interview opposing witnesses?
I had an excellent night’s sleep, so, suitably refreshed, I’m going to walk a well-worn path once more. The primary facts relevant to a determination that Babbitt’s killing was not justified are:
I would not charge the officer with knowledge that there were other officers on the other side of the wall since he may not have known that. However, the fact that he did not position himself closer to or in front of Babbitt is relevant to whether she was appropriately warned.
Those who defend the shooting seem to be arguing essentially that it was “understandable” under the circumstances, and therefore should be excused. But, even if true, that’s not good enough. The officer’s training and make-up should move the needle on what is “understandable” and move it towards the true criteria discussed above for the use of deadly force.
But, but, but, … she had a backpack.
And so did many others, who were not shot…
And many other Capital Police had guns without having opened fire on unarmed trespassers.
I think the video I put in #33 is very illustrative of the type of people that too often find their way into law-enforcement.
If it had been a white cop shooting a black trespasser, there would have been riots. Black cop shooting a white woman? Meh.
#defundthecapitolpolice
The video that I watched twice, but that has since been taken down from YouTube, showed that she had both hands on the desk. The window she was climbing through was desk height, as I recall. I don’t remember what she was standing on, but the image I have in my mind from seeing the video is of her sort of crouching on the desk, with one knee and two hands on the desk, and she was looking up. That’s when she was shot.
The video captured her being shot, then a bunch of people from behind her sort of tilted her back to lay her on the floor. She was still alive during the video. I thought the EMT was moving really slowly. It was surreal. It was partly covid, I’m sure, but good grief, I couldn’t believe how long it took for the EMT to open her shirt and get his gloves on. Perhaps he knew she was about to die so there was no hurry. I have no idea.
Apparently, the reason she could put her knee and hands on the desk was because the pane was just plexiglass, not real glass. There was no broken glass.
What jumped out at me most of all was how calm everyone was, including Ashli Babbitt. There was no terror in the office on the side that Ashli Babbitt was entering, nor in the small crowd milling around the anteroom to that office. My sense was that this particular office was somewhat away from where most of the other protesters were gathered.
I watched it twice, and then it was gone. So I’m not sure what’s accurate in my memory of it.
I am angry at the members of Congress. Had I been a senator or representative, I would have been with the protesters simply talking to them. They were not a threatening group of people. I realize there was a handful of people who made the nightly news that day who scared people, but it was such a small number that the security personnel could have easily focused their efforts on that small group while treating the rest of the protesters as normal Americans–not too bright, for sure, but not a threat.
Still waiting. Hope to hear from you so we can continue our dialogue. Sincerely, Jim
My guess is, he’s a busy guy and refuses to be cross-examined.
“I have to work” doesn’t keep him from making 1,500 word comments and reading books and posting reviews. Sounds like he’s all bark.
Selective/unfalsifiable excuses are the best.
I got a full night of sleep and went to church. I watched D’Nesh D’Souza’s hour long podcast. I was not convinced. I have the following observations:
Member of Proud Boys Charged with Obstructing an Official Proceeding, Other Charges Related to the Jan. 6 Riots
WASHINGTON— A member of the Proud Boys, a nationalist organization, was arrested today and charged in federal court in the District of Columbia with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, among other charges.
Ethan Nordean, a/k/a Rufio Panman, 30, of Washington state, was charged by criminal complaint in federal court in the District of Columbia with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison; aiding and abetting, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison; and knowingly entering or remaining in restricted building or grounds and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, which each carry a maximum penalty of one year in prison. Nordean will appear in federal court in the Western District of Washington at 2:00 PST.
According to charging documents, Nordean is the self-described “Sergeant of Arms” of the Seattle Chapter of the Proud Boys, a group self-described as a “pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.”
It is alleged that Nordean was observed marching at the front of a group of known Proud Boys shortly before the riot began. It is further alleged that Nordean was among those who entered the U.S. Capitol building after rioters, including certain persons associated with the Proud Boys, forced entry into the Capitol by means of destruction of Federal property. It is also alleged that Nordean was near the front of the crowd of rioters, who collectively approached, confronted, and vastly outnumbered Capitol Police.
Prior to Jan. 6, 2021, Nordean posted on social media certain indications of an intent to organize a group that intended to engage in conflict. For example, around Dec. 27, 2020, Nordean posted a message asking for donations of “protective gear” and “communications equipment.” On Jan. 4, 2021, Nordean posted a video on social media, which he captioned, “Let them remember the day they decided to make war with us.”
On or about the same day, Nordean posted a video of a discussion that Nordean had with another member of the Proud Boys. During the course of the hour long video, Nordean discussed what he described as “blatant, rampant voter fraud” in the Presidential election. Nordean went on to say that, rather than being complacent, the Proud Boys were going to “bring back that original spirit of 1776 of what really established the character of what America is. And it’s not complacency, it’s not low standards. It’s ‘this is how it’s going to be, and I don’t give a god damn.’” Later in the video, Nordean said, “Democracy is dead? Well, then no peace for you. No democracy, no peace.”
The day before the riots, Nordean posted the following statement to social media: “It is apparent now more than ever, that if you are a patriot, you will be targeted and they will come after you, funny thing is that they don’t realize is, is we are coming for them. You’ve chosen your side, black and yellow teamed with red, white and blue against everyone else.”
Jersey, traveled to the District of Columbia to participate in a rally and protest at the U.S. Capitol.
HALE-CUSANELLI is enlisted in the United States Army Reserves, and also works as a
contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle where he maintains a “Secret” security clearance and
has access to a variety of munitions.On January 12, 2021, I received information from DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZKR KDV EHHQ
HQUROOHG DV a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) with NCIS. The CHS reported that
HALE-CUSANELLI told the CHS that HALE-CUSANELLI was present at the riot at the
United States Capitol Building and, as part of the riot, he entered the Capitol building itself.
HALE-CUSANELLI then showed CHS videos on his cell phone which depicted HALECUSANELLI making harassing and derogatory statements toward Capitol Police officers both
inside and outside the Capitol building.
During our meeting on January 12, 2021, the CHS reported to me that
HALE-CUSANELLI is an avowed white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer who posts video
opinion statements on YouTube proffering extreme political opinions and viewpoints under the
title the “Based Hermes Show.” HALE-CUSANELLI also posts similar content in other
forums. Prior to traveling to the rally and protest on January 6, 2021, HALE-CUSANELLI
wrote “Trust the plan, it’s the final countdown, stay tuned next episode” and “Trust the plan,
major announcement soon.”
On January 14, 2021, the CHS was able to utilize an NCIS-approved recording device to
record a conversation between the CHS and HALE-CUSANELLI. During this conversation,
HALE-CUSANELLI admitted to entering the Capitol and encouraging other members of the
mob to “advance” – giving directions via both voice and hand signals. HALE-CUSANELLI
told the CHS that if they’d had more men they could have taken over the entire building.
HALE-CUSANELLI also admitted to taking a flag and flagpole that he observed another
rioter throw “like a javelin” at a Capitol Police officer, which HALE-CUSANELLI described
as a “murder weapon.” HALE-CUSANELLI stated his intent to destroy or dispose of the flag
and flagpole as soon as he could.
Of note, I found the following article about Mr. Hale-Cusanelli at https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/politics/timothy-hale-cusanelli-nazi-sympathizer-capitol-insurrection/index.html.
Navy probe finds contractor charged in Capitol insurrection was well-known Nazi sympathizer
The Navy launched its own internal inquiry after Hale-Cusanelli was arrested in January, and nearly three dozen of his colleagues shared stories of his alleged racist and bigoted comments. Prosecutors highlighted the Navy’s findings in a filing advocating for his continued detention.
One of Hale-Cusanelli’s supervisors told investigators that he would walk up to new colleagues and ask, “You’re not Jewish, are you?” A petty officer claimed they heard him say, “Jews, women, and Blacks were on the bottom of the totem pole.” Another contractor at the base said Hale-Cusanelli told them that Jewish people “are ruining everything and did not belong here,” according to the filing.
In a shocking revelation, prosecutors said Hale-Cusanelli came to the base last year sporting a distinctive mustache that resembled the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. One of his supervisors told the Navy investigators that they confronted Hale-Cusanelli about his apparent “Hitler mustache.”
Another naval officer recalled that Hale-Cusanelli said, “Hitler should have finished the job.”
Prosecutors also found evidence that they said proved Hale-Cusanelli’s extremist views after searching his phone. They found a video where he allegedly pushed the conspiracy theory that “the Jews did 9/11,” and another clip where he allegedly said, “I hate immigrants…intensely.”
On the day of the Capitol insurrection, prosecutors say Hale-Cusanelli recorded a video of himself shouting an obscene vulgarity at a female police officer who was protecting the building.
Pictures of Defendant Hale-Cusanelli with a Hitler mustache.
Jim,
I will look forward to you watching the New York Times Documentary, and hearing your review of it. Here is the link:
Gary
If anyone is it all hesitant to ascribe bad faith to this commenter, I’d hope that posting the same “documentary” from the NYT twice in less than two pages in the same thread would settle that issue.
I have now studied your comments and the articles you have quoted, the observations you have made about the D’Souza-Kelly interview and I have studied the New York Times video, very slowly and I think methodically, not once but twice in order to be sure I am on sound footing in this response. I will cover your two responses to my post first, saving for last my thoughts – I started to say “conclusions” but that’s too strong a word about something about which there are still so many open questions – about the NYT video, as there is an enormous amount of material to unpack there. Additionally, I am copying several of our Ricochet colleagues — @hoyacon, @kedavis, @flicker, @bobthompson, @fakejohnjanegalt, @jimmcconnell, @marcin–on this response as they have been involved in the discussion about this post and they may have an interest in my observations, for what they’re worth.
As I have no indication of the basis upon which you have critically judged “his recent behavior” or the basis upon which you have deemed him “an unreliable individual”, I am unable to respond in any meaningful way to these statements. I do, however, have my own opinions about this individual, who I find to be quite accomplished and who we all know was viciously persecuted by Obama and his thugs for making the mistake of telling the truth about Obama’s past in a movie he produced. Additionally, I found the interview a valuable resource in trying to understand not only the events of Jan. 6, but, even more importantly in my view, the disgraceful aftermath in which the Rule of Law has been desecrated by the Federal Judges in DC primarily on the basis of ideology.
This is a quote from Lt. Byrd’s astonishing TV appearance on NBC, always such a reliable source of good, solid, tireless reporting (S/O) and I use that word astonishing as, I would think, this would be most lawyers’ nightmare, to have the client appear, in effect, before the entire world and make all kinds of self-serving, but also self-incriminating, statements. I know the answer to that is that he had already been “cleared” by his fellow
defendersPelosi sycophants in the Capitol bureaucracy, but I must assume the attorneys for the Ashli Babbitt family must have been watching in disbelief at their good fortune. Also, as to his statements that there was no “other way to get out”, this is disproven by a portion of the NYT video (at approximately ) which shows members of Congress and a number of law enforcement officers in the Speaker’s Lobby on the other side of the window through which Ashli Babbitt was attempting to enter.This does not require a response as it is not in any way whatsoever germane to the issue under consideration. Additionally, if I just wrote a few of the words which come to mind concerning my opinion of this person, I would be barred from this forum, perhaps forever, and I enjoy Ricochet too much to take that chance.
This not relevant to the issue under consideration, but for what it’s worth, I also consider, as does Ms. Kelly and other very eminent observers and analysts such as Mollie Hemingway and Roger Kimball, just to name a little sample, that the election was rigged, stolen, manipulated by some of the most corrupt practices ever seen in this country.
This is so totally irrelevant I will not even attempt a response.
I, on the other hand, found her most persuasive, as I find her many articles on American Greatness which have made her the preeminent writer on both the event and its aftermath.
(Cont’d)
I have practiced so little Criminal Law it would be irresponsible to even offer a guess as to the proper procedure here. However, I –and I can only hope many of our fellow citizens – have been incensed at the blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment being inflicted upon these defendants with the cruel and unusual punishment being handed out in the so-called “Jan. 6 stalag” in DC. While you may not accord Ms. Kelly much credence, some of her articles have outlined the stomach-churning experiences some of these defendants have had to endure and these articles have been based on any number of personal interviews with the defendants and their families. Also, I just saw on Twitter a letter from one of the inmates, Nathan DeGrave– can be accessed here –outlining the horrific, vile conditions in this dungeon and I urge everyone to read the entire thread as you have to see it to believe that such a place could actually exist in our America! And, Gary, as fellow members of the Bar, I refuse to believe that there are any attorneys with active licenses who would agree with many of the members of the sewer a/k/a the Twitterverse who say that people accused, in many cases, of minor “crimes” like trespassing are held in solitary confinement for months on end.
I assume you will disagree with this statement, but, based on what I have been reading lately, there is a growing body of evidence that the FBI, and maybe other Federal agencies, actually fomented the Whitmer plot– I am sure it was sheer coincidence it was just shortly before the election!– and that they were either involved in much of the allegedly illegal planning for violence or actually led it. As a matter of fact, one of the apparently FBI-protected provocateurs, Ray Epps, figures quite prominently in the video you referenced (at 4:10 and 6:40 marks) leading the crowd and, dare I say it, “inciting” the crowd to go “into the building”! According to an elaborately researched article in revolver.com, he appeared at first on some of the “most wanted” posters the FBI circulated and then – poof! — just disappeared. The Revolver piece can be accessed here — it is entitled “Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol.”
(Cont’d)
I assume the piece you quoted from is the press release of the US Attorney’s Office of DC dated February 3, 2021, which can be accessed here, should others care to check it out. I was especially struck by one of his statements: “Nordean went on to say that, rather than being complacent, the Proud Boys were going to “bring back that original spirit of 1776 of what really established the character of what America is. And it’s not complacency, it’s not low standards.” I’m not sure if by noting the following makes me a “Proud Boy”, although it must be noted that at my age referring to me as any kind of “boy” is risible, I must say I find every word of that statement as laudable as any words could be; it seems to be that if more of our citizens loudly proclaimed they wanted to bring back the “original spirit of 1776” we would all be better off as a Nation. Also of interest in that press release is this statement reflecting the real reach of the power of the Government when it really wants to get a conviction– here is a list of the agencies amassed to be sure there are no more “Proud Boys”–ever: “The case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Western District of Washington. The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, with assistance by the FBI’s Seattle Division.” However, not to worry, as they were quick to add the following assurance with which and a dollar you can get a ride on the St. Charles streetcar in New Orleans: “The charges contained in the complaint are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.” That “court of law” is the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia, so good luck with your presumption of innocence.
My research revealed a document I believe is the one you quoted from and, again for those who might be interested in exploring the matter further, it can be found here. Based on what you have quoted about this person, and what I have been able to find out about him through my own research, the most I can say about his apparent character is that he would not be my first choice as someone to share my evening Chardonnay with. Having established that he is not a really nice person, that still leaves open the question whether someone charged with, among other relatively minor offenses, “parading” in the Capitol —
(Cont’d)
— should be subjected to the “cruel and unusual punishment” of solitary confinement for months on end.
The New York Times video: There is so much here I truly hardly know where to start, but perhaps a good place would be to note that the ferocious picture you present in your comment turns out to that of an American citizen shouting those terrifying, hurtful, painful, devastating and frightening words: “God Bless America”! But, since he was not exactly the producer’s “kind”, but more of the type Hillary Clinton once famously described, that is the photo they chose for their opening scene. Their “ink”, their choice, but still speaks volumes about their methods. As to their methods, I must say they were quite honest and open in reporting the many and massive security failures which proximately, at least in part, contributed to the length and intensity of the protest and very possibly to the death of Ashli Babbitt herself. In that regard, I was reminded of one of the central observations made by Congressman Nehls, cited in the OP, in his appearance on the Tucker Carlson show. Before he stated that Ashli Babbitt’s killing was murder, he emphasized that, based on his extensive review of the entire incident in preparation for his service on the ultimately aborted Jan. 6 Commission (which the NYT video laughably refers to as an “independent” review), he made the flat statement that “it should have never happened” and would not have happened, or certainly not to the extent it did, had the many pleas for extra security been taken seriously. Mentions of this more and more serious problem as the day went on can be found at, for example, 24:30, 30:27, 31:04, 31:27, and, to me at least, most tellingly at about 37:46, where the narrator states that the reason the National Guard did not arrive for over 3 hours after the initial call on Jan. 6 – there were calls before the day of the incident which were ignored- was that there had been a change in procedure requiring approval by the leadership of the Pentagon. It seems that the National Guard was at the ready only 20 minutes from the Capitol but the orders to move out were delayed by the Pentagon due to a concern for “bad optics”, one of those statements which causes one to say “you just can’t make this stuff up.”
Another question raised in studying this video is how, when little scraps of video are having to be pried loose from the Department of [In]Justice and pursuant to suits by Judicial Watch, the NYT was able to get its hands on all this video, some of which they say was from body cams of some of the police which the Department has steadfastly refused to produce in the various prosecutions.
(Cont’d)