➡ Judicial Watch is working to clean up voting rolls in California, Oregon, and Illinois, aiming to remove potentially fraudulent names. Recently, they uncovered documents suggesting a Chinese plot to influence the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden, involving fake driver’s licenses and mail-in ballots. Despite evidence, this information was not fully investigated or made public. Judicial Watch is pushing for a special prosecutor to investigate these allegations and ensure election integrity.
➡ Judicial Watch, a legal group, has been working to clean up voter rolls across the U.S., arguing that many states have not been properly maintaining their voter lists as required by federal law. They have successfully removed millions of ineligible names from these lists over the past few years. However, they continue to face opposition, particularly in Oregon, which has one of the highest rates of inactive voter registrations. Judicial Watch is also challenging laws that allow for the counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day, arguing that this violates federal law which sets a specific Election Day.
➡ Our client, Congressman Bost, challenged a rule in Illinois that extended the date for receipt and counting of mail-in ballots by 14 days. The court ruled that he didn’t have the right to challenge this, which we believe is wrong. We’ve asked the Supreme Court to consider this issue, as we believe candidates should be able to challenge election rules that could lead to illegal votes being counted. In other news, we’ve settled a wrongful death lawsuit for Ashley Babbitt’s family, who was killed during the January 6th events, for $4.975 million.
➡ The government has settled a lawsuit for $4.975 million with the family of Ashley Babbitt, who was shot by a police officer during a demonstration at the Capitol. Despite the officer’s questionable record and the circumstances of the shooting, he was promoted to captain. The lawsuit included claims of wrongful death, assault, and negligence. While this settlement brings some justice, further legal action and investigations into Babbitt’s death are still possible.

Foreign Judicial Watch attorneys were in Los Angeles this week in federal court to advance a Judicial Watch lawsuit against California to clean upwards of 2 million dirty names from the voting rolls. And last week, our attorneys were in Oregon in federal court again to advance a lawsuit there to clean up the rolls in that state. And in just a few weeks, we’ll be in Illinois. Our attorneys will be to challenge Illinois’s refusal to clean up their dirty voting rolls in federal court. Look, Judicial Watch has cleaned about 5 million names from the voting rolls nationally. But right now, we’re in three different federal courts in less than a month to clean millions more.

There’s no one doing more heavy lifting to secure our elections from potential fraud by cleaning up the dirty voting rolls. So we had a significant news development this week as a result of the partial disclosure of information by the FBI under Kash Patel. Now, you’ve heard me criticize the FBI under his direction, not being transparent enough, but it doesn’t mean he’s never transparent. And he uncovered some new documents hidden by the FBI about an alleged Chinese plot to rig the election on behalf of Joe Biden in 2020. Remember, you know, the Justice Department under Bob Barr or Bill Barr, you know, he didn’t want to even talk about any of this.

And you know, anyone who raised these types of issues were censored or pushed out. So our friends at Just the News, you may know John Solomon, I’ve been on his show many times. Reports FBI gave Congress intel on alleged Chinese plot to create fake mail in ballots in 2020. Patel turned over to Congress an intelligence report raising concerns that China had mass produced fake driver’s licenses to carry out a scheme to hijack the 2020 election with fake mail in ballots for Democrat Joe Biden. The intelligence reports were from 2020 and were corroborated or fully investigated. Weren’t corroborated or fully investigated.

So they got the information and they didn’t bother to follow up in a substantial way and instead were recalled from intelligence agencies at that time by then FBI Director Chris Wray, who, by the way, then had testified there were no known plots of foreign interference ahead of the 2020 election in which Biden defeated President Trump. And the documents were turned over by cash to Chuck Grassley, who runs the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. The allegations include plans from the CCP to manufacture fake driver’s licenses and ship them into the United States for the purposes of facilitating fraudulent mail in ballots.

Allegations which, while substantiated, were abruptly recalled and never disclosed to the public. And you Know how they were substantiated or corroborated? U.S. customs and Border Protection intercepted nearly 20,000 fake licenses around the time the intelligence was coming in. So they had the intel that the Chinese were trying to steal the election for their boy Joe. They had information. Literally, they had caught the Chinese sending in fake driver’s licenses. And what did they do? They buried it. Not only did they bury it, they said to their colleagues in the intelligence community that had seen the initial intelligence report, take it out of your system and delete it.

So not only did they bury it, they destroyed it. You can be sure this was responsive to numerous Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits or requests. And I’m glad Cash has turned it over to Chuck Grassley. But none of us has seen the documents yet. And in response to Cash’s tweet promoting this, I asked him. It’s great. It’s an important development. Now, when are the American people going to see this information? It’s declassified. Where are the documents? And of course, President Trump is feeling vindicated and outraged at the same time by further confirmation that justifying questioning the results of the 2020 election.

Now, do I know what happened as a result of this plot? I don’t. But no one investigated it, so why can’t we or shouldn’t we presume the worst and be very worried about it? And President Trump tweeted the following or issued the following post on truth social media. Zero border crossings for the month for Trump versus 60,000 for sleepy crooked Joe Biden, a man who lost the 2020 presidential election by a landslide. Biden was grossly incompetent in the 2020 election, was a total fraud. The evidence is massive and overwhelming. A special prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United states of America, etc.

So what should happen with a special prosecutor? I believe a special prosecutor should be appointed as well, for not only 2020, but a variety of reasons. And if I were President Trump, I would do the following. I’d appoint the prosecutor. My he’s the President. The founders understood the President was the prosecutor in chief. And I don’t think he can or should rely on the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate this. Again. This is further evidence. This China cover up is further evidence. The FBI can’t be trusted. The FBI has to be investigated and the FBI can’t investigate the FBI.

I’m sorry, it’s. You know, Cash and Dan Bongino could be the best people in the world and I trust their ethics and such, but they can’t investigate their own agency like that. They just can’t. They’re not going to be able to find the people in the agency they can trust to get it done. It’s just a practical issue. Plus, the public has a right to an uncompromised or unconflicted investigation. And I got some good language here I want to share with you before my phone dies. As chief executive magistrate, the president can not only make the special prosecution appointment that I suggest, but authorize the creation of a special investigative unit comprised of appropriate personnel.

So what he can doand this President Washington ran prosecutions. President Jefferson ran prosecutions, President Madison. They all ran prosecutions in the beginning of the country because if you’re the chief executive officer, you’re necessarily the chief magistrate and chief prosecutor. So what he should do is pick someone he wants to be special prosecutor or an entity, some would suggest a judicial watch be appointed special prosecutor. He could do worse. I’m not saying we would do it or could do it, but I’m making the point. And judicial watcher, whoever he appoints, could run the special unit reporting directly to President Trump.

And they could be supported with staff from outside the DOJ and FBI, plenty of law enforcement agencies or officials or officers capable of providing support who aren’t FBI agents or Justice Department agents, like the Postal Inspection Service. They’ve got a bunch of good guys over there. You got Homeland Security, they have an investigative unit. Same goes for a lot of these other big agencies. U.S. marshals, I guess that’s DOJ, but maybe they’re distinct enough that you can have individual U.S. marshals provide support. And of course, they can just hire outsiders to do it. They can hire retired law enforcement, local law enforcement, to investigate anything the president wants investigated under law.

Now, of course, the law still protects those who are targets of any investigation. So if there’s any serious criminal investigation, any target or witness, they still have all their rights under law. So this is not a lawless investigation. This is a constitutional investigation. And the president can make decisions about what to prosecute, what to investigate, who to ask, who to charge, whether to charge. And of course, he can seek advice and counsel from his attorney general as to the propriety of such investigations or prosecutions in the end. But it’s only advice. Let’s put it this way.

If President Trump wanted to prosecute the case himself in a court, he could. And I don’t say that to mean that President Trump should prosecute a case himself in court, however interesting that might be. But I’M highlighting the scope and expansive reach of his power as president to run federal prosecutions. The founders did it, and that’s good enough for me in terms of providing a basis for him to do it. And it flows naturally from the Constitution. So don’t wait for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. Just do it yourself. Because a special counsel, again, is a creature of the Justice Department and all the conflicts that Justice Department has.

And again, in investigating itself, because they don’t bring in people from the outside. Most of the special counsel staff are typically DOJ detailees. So that’s how I would handle the 2020 issues. The Lawfare against Trump, the censorship, the border invasion, the Biden corruption, the pardons. I’d have a special prosecutorial public integrity unit, Government Integrity Unit, accountability unit. Let’s come up with great names for it, right? Let’s figure out what. And I’m sure Trump will have the best name in the end, given his marketing genius in that regard. And get it done because time’s running out. And so what I love about Judicial Watch, we’ve got our lawyers on one coast here in Washington, D.C.

and almost simultaneously we have our lawyers in Eugene, Oregon across the country. So we had our lawyers here in Washington, D.C. arguing for transparency on the censorship operation against Americans over really election integrity issues in many ways. And in Oregon, we were in federal court arguing for our case over cleaning up the election rolls, which of course again is essential to election integrity. The case has been going on for a bit now and we were in court trying to convince the court to reject the defendant’s efforts and others efforts to get our case dismissed in large measure due to the fact supposedly no one has standing to ever question whether election rolls are clean as federal law requires.

And I explained the Oregon case in this previous update snippet that I’m going to have played for you. Now it is number 20. Hey everyone. Huge news. Judicial Watch lawsuits led to the cleanup of 4 million dirty names from the voting rolls in just the last two years or so. But there’s more heavy lifting to be done for cleaner elections. That’s why Judicial Watch just sued the state of Oregon to force it to finally clean up its voting rolls, which are a mess. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls and Oregon hasn’t been doing that.

In fact, our new lawsuit just filed for and with the Constitution Party of Oregon and Oregon voters details how 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%. Frankly, Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. You know, dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon, as I said, has some of the worst voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up as soon as possible. In the meantime, Judicial Watch has lawsuits to clean up voting rolls in California and in Illinois.

Simply put, millions of ineligible names need to be removed from the voter rolls under federal law. And Judicial Watch has been, is, and will be in federal court making it happen. And so for the first time in a long time, we also had support in this case, at least in part from the Justice Department, Harmeet Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division, which for years, even during Republican administrations, has been a hotbed for radical left wing activism. And, and they filed a brief statement of interest advocating at least for access to the information that we’re seeking related to voting rolls.

And so I’m not quite sure how the case is going to go, but I am of the belief that our ability to clean up the rolls in the end has to be maintained by the courts. The idea that the states don’t take the steps that federal law requires under the National Voter Registration act, reasonable steps to clean up the rolls and no one will be able to do anything about it, that just can’t be the case ultimately. And this is all they have to do. It’s not like a difficult issue and you may not know what the process is, but we do because our work basically codified the process through Supreme Court and other judicial decisions and settlements.

As I’ve mentioned, we’ve cleaned up 5 million names from the rolls thanks to our litigation and legal action thus far. And so what happens is, and I talked about this with you just recently, if you go to vote, let’s say I go to vote or I don’t vote in the next federal election. So let’s. When’s the next federal election? Next year, 2026. The state or locality I live in the district, they would send me a card saying, hey Fitton, why didn’t you vote? Are you still there? That’s not literally what they say, but that’s the effect of what they’re asking.

Because if you’re not there, we’re going to take your name off the rolls. And if I don’t respond to the card or if I don’t vote over the next two federal election cycles. So that’s four plus years, including the time associated with getting the card out. So it could Be five plus years before my name is ultimately removed, assuming I’ve moved away, right? Or I don’t respond or vote. Now, the left doesn’t want any of those names cleaned up, practically speaking. And they’re fighting us tooth and nail in all of these jurisdictions when we go to court.

Some of these liberal jurisdictions when we come in, believe it or not, they say, hey, Judicial Watch, you’re right. Let’s clean up the rolls. That happened in New York City. We said, you haven’t cleaned up the rolls in 10 years there. And they said, you’re right, in the last year or so, plus, they’ve cleaned a million names from the rolls just in New York. So just don’t think just because it’s, quote, a blue state or states run by liberals that there’s no justice to be had. We sued in California to clean up the rolls there. They settled.

1.2 million names cleaned up in LA county alone. Now the rest of the state’s a mess. We have a new lawsuit trying to vindicate the rule of law there. But the point being, we can get it done everywhere. And that’s why we’re in Illinois right now, in California right now, and as I said, just in Oregon. And I encourage you to go and take a look at all of Judicial Watch’s significant work on election integrity. And of course, one of the most significant cases in recent American history on election integrity is going to be in front of the Supreme Court because of your Judicial Watch.

We’re challenging the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. Mail in ballots. In Illinois, they count ballots that arrive for after, after election day for 14 days. And rather than let our client, Congressman Mike Boss, challenge it, because federal law sets an election day, not an election week or month, the courts below found that he didn’t have standing, which in my view is absurd. If a candidate can’t challenge the illicit counting of ballots contrary to federal law, as alleged in our lawsuit, who can? And the Supreme Court evidently wants to figure out whether we’re right.

And they agreed to take up the case. And I think the case is going to be heard in October or November or as soon as October or November could be later. So the issue about whether a candidate essentially can go to court to challenge and try to stop an election from being stolen, that’s a pretty big deal, wouldn’t you agree? And that’s going to be before the Supreme Court next term. So great work Judicial Watch is doing. As I said this week, on one day, on Tuesday, I think it was Tuesday, maybe It was Wednesday. No, it was Wednesday.

We had our lawyers arguing to uncover the worst censorship in American history. Documents related to it in federal court here in Washington, D.C. and on the other end of the country, we had another team of lawyers arguing to ensure that Judicial Watch and the local party out there, the Constitution Party and others, had the right to go in and ensure that Oregon, who has some of the dirtiest roles in the country, cleaning up their roles is federal law requires. And I dare you to find anyone else on the conservative side of the aisle that is doing that type of work and is capable of doing that type of work.

It’s just great. And we’re only able to do it with your support. And before I move on, I want to ask for your support again, because we can’t do it without you. Go to judicialwatch.org, if you want the rolls clean, if you want elections honest, if you want the Supreme Court to rule that candidates have a right to make sure that elections aren’t stol and in federal court and should be able to pursue claims under law, if you want all sorts of other issues related to transparency and accountability over censorship, covering the corruption of the deep state FBI, and be willing to take on an administration or a Justice Department, no matter who’s running it, then you’ll love Judicial Watch and support our work.

And what happens is the court, Supreme Court has conferences that are private where they consider whether to take up cases or petitions for cert, which is what it’s called. And as I told you, Judicial Watch has been suing in courts across the land to ensure that ballots that arrive after election day are not counted because federal law sets an election day, not an election week, not an election month. We sued in Illinois, where they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election Day. We sued in Mississippi, where they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after election Day.

And we just most recently sued on behalf of Congressman Daryl Issa in California, which counts ballots that arrive up to seven days after election Day. And creating a situation in which the Republicans in Congress lost two seats to Democrats due to solely ballots that were counted that arrived after election day. So in our view, unlawful ballots. So that case just started in Mississippi. The case went up on appeal to the 5th Circuit, and we won. The 5th Circuit found accounting ballots that arrive after election day is unlawful. In Illinois, we didn’t win on the merits because the court found that there was no standing to challenge the rule by our client.

We’re representing Congressman Bost in Illinois, and Two electors, two voters. And the court found, oh no, they don’t have standing, which with all due respect is absurd. Why wouldn’t a federal candidate have standing to challenge the illicit counting as alleged of ballots? It doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not going to spend a lot of time explaining the court decision why, but we’re hoping the Supreme Court considers taking up this issue. So the court won’t necessarily address the issue on the merits, but we’ll hopefully rule or consider that. Why are candidates being frozen out election challenges, some of which to me is tied to the Trump to Trump anti Trump animus.

Oh, Trump challenged elections. Therefore we can’t let any other candidate challenge elections. And I think there’s that politics and that anti Trump animus taints this decision making process by certain courts, even appointees appointed by Trump. It’s not sensible what they’ve been doing in this case specifically. So we filed the writ assertiari the cert petition and the Supreme Court considered it this week. Despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote by mail ballots. And as I said in our other case in Mississippi, the fifth Circuit already found the counting of such ballots is unlawful.

And the court in our case in Illinois, two weeks. And my understanding is they don’t even necessarily have to be postmarked. And remember, a candidate for federal office can’t challenge that lawlessness for over 130 years. We asked the court or tell the court, this court has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state time, place or manner regulations affecting their federal elections until recently. Recently being, you know what, 2020. Boo. Right. It was axiomatic that candidates had standing to challenge these regulations. Look up axiomatic, you’ll see how important that is. It’s like, it’s almost without question.

It’s like a truth on his face. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anyone who has more particularized injury than the candidate has. And that’s a quote from a case that is because a candidate who pours money and sweat into a campaign, who spends time away from her job and family to traverse the campaign trail and who puts her name on a ballot has an undeniably different and more particularized interest in the lawfulness of the election than some random voter petitioners are sitting multi term Congressman. Congressman Bost. B O S T thank you, Congressman Boss, for being willing to fight with judicial watch here.

We’re honored to represent you. And two Federal electors. It is a scandal. This is how I term it. It is a scandal that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted. Illinois’s 14 day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. The Supreme Court should take up the case and reaffirm the right of federal candidates to challenge unlawful election schemes. So the standing issue is a big deal. We’re running into issues on it in our fights over to clean up election rolls as well.

So it’s concerning. But 1819 states count. Well, maybe now it’s 17 because Mississippi’s law was overruled, although I think they’re going to appeal that to the Supreme Court. So who knows what the status of that is? Well, the point is 18, 19 states count ballots that arrive after election Day and a candidate can’t challenge that. That’s what the judge in Illinois said. That’s what the appellate court said. And we hope the Supreme Court fixes that as soon as possible. So we’re going to know next week, or maybe we won’t know next week, but typically it will be announced next week if it is decided whether to take the case up.

So I guess it’s too late to pray for wisdom and discernment since the decision may have been made. But, you know, who knows? Maybe they put it off and they will consider it another day. Either way, we’re hoping for justice from the Supreme Court, this important issue. More great news. Today we can announce that the wrongful death lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed for Ashley Babbitt’s family has been settled with the federal government, the United states government, for $4.975 million. $4,975,000. And it’s a great victory for Ashley and her family. It is necessary. It’s a fair settlement.

And we had filed this lawsuit for her family back in, I think it was 2022. And we’ve been battling in court for years, investigating, litigating, exposing what went on with her. What I would. Well, it’s not what I would call her literal homicide. And thanks, frankly, to the Trump administration being in power, they settled this case with us. And what a day for justice. As a result, as our press release sets out, this fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashley Babbitt’s family. Ashley should never have been killed. And this settlement destroys the evil partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer.

Judicial Watch’s team spent years investigating, litigating, exposing the truth about Ashley’s homicide. And credit goes to the hundreds of thousands of Judicial Watch supporters who fought for this cause. President Trump was an absolute rock in supporting Ashley’s family and advocating for justice. So what a wonderful team effort by Judicial Watch’s team with the support of Americans. And of course, Ashley’s widower husband, Aaron Babbitt, who we filed the lawsuit for. And of course, we’ve been helping and praying and supporting. Also Ashley’s mother, Mickey, and I can tell you they’re thrilled about this settlement. And you can be sure the left, because there’s been stories previous to this, because I couldn’t talk about the amount or the settlement.

I mean, it just happened literally today. The government signed the settlement papers today. Here, I’ve got the settlement here. This is what it looks like. And the lawyer for the Justice Department signed it doesn’t look like they used an auto pen today on June 6th. And. But it had been previously reported someone had leaked it, that the settlement was out there. And of course, we had a court battle earlier on that required us to disclose that we had settled in principle. And the left went crazy. They started smearing and defaming Ashley and her memory, attacking her family, attacking Trump, attacking January 6th.

This is all about thisand this settlement blows out of the water. The lies about January 6th, you know, their whole narrative depended on only police officers being hurt that day. And there were police officers that were hurt that day. But what got in the way of that narrative about how terrible January Sixers were? Poor Ashley was killed for no good reason by Lieutenant Byrd. Let’s play the video of Ashley being killed again. There’s a gun. There’s a gun. He’s got a gun. I can’t believe he shot her. To this day, I can’t believe he shot her like that.

I think she was crawling through that window. I think, you know, looking at the videos for safety. And we published online the last 19 minutes of Ashley’s life, and it looked to me, watching what went on, they could have saved her life if they had moved more quickly to save her life and provide her medical support. So we filed the lawsuit in 2024, not 2022, as I misremembered. And we filed today, I don’t think we filed this actual document with the court, but the document, it reads, it’s called a stipulation for compromise, settlement and release. Now, of course, the lawsuit initially was filed for $30 million, but the settlement now is for 4.975 million.

And it’s a settlement, right? It’s a compromise. And this is how it describes. This is how the settlement is described legally in the document to settle and compromise each and every claim of any kind, whether known or unknown, including claims for wrongful death arising directly or indirectly from the acts of. Or, excuse me, from the acts or omissions that gave rise to the above captioned action under the terms and conditions set forth in the stipulation. The stipulation is not and should not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, its agents, servants or employees, and it is specifically denied that they are liable to plaintiffs.

The settlement is entered into all by parties. Excuse me. The settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. And that was the law under which we sued for Ashley’s family and avoiding the expenses and risk of further litigation. So, in consideration for the plaintiff’s agreement to accept the terms and conditions of the settlement, the United States agrees to pay plaintiffs the amount of $4,975,000. There you have it. That’s how settlements are reached. It’s relatively standard language. So the government is admitting liability, but, you know, my view is you can draw your own conclusion from the number $4.975 million that they gave to settle the case.

It’s a compromised number. They admit nothing, but they were prepared to go to trial on this case before the Trump people came in. We’re going to be in trial in 2026. The lawsuit included claims against the government for wrongful death, assault and battery, and various negligence claims. And the lawsuit was very useful and still is useful potentially for anyone who wants to actually pursue further law enforcement action against Ashley Babbitt’s killer, who should never, in my view, been anywhere near that scene, let alone even having a gun. He left his gun in the bathroom in the middle of the Capitol Visitor center, which is where all the tourists walked through to visit the Capitol.

He was involved with an improper shooting near his home. He couldn’t even get a shotgun from civilian authorities because of his record, and it had to be lent to him by the U.S. capitol Police. We also exposed how, during the shooting, he put out a radio call. Shots fired, shots fired. He was the only person who fired a shot, and they covered his name up for months. They hid him from the American people. Judicial Watch exposed how he was given special accommodations. He was allowed to stay rent free at Joint Base Andrews, a United States base A military base.

The Defense Department was involved in the COVID up of who he was. For months this shooting was treated like no other police involved shooting in recent memory. And I don’t think there was ever a serious criminal investigation of that shooting. Death of Ashley Babbitt, the only official homicide victim that day. Let’s put up another Picture of Ashley, 14 year veteran of the United States Air Force. And she came to D.C. by herself because she loved Trump, supported Trump, and she ended up in this situation where she got shot by this out of control police officer. So yeah, the government was right to settle the case for $4.975 million with Ashley’s family over what happened.

Does it mean this issue is over? Of course not. We’ve got litigation for records about Ashley and I know, you know, people who were there. The shooting occurred at. Let me tell you what the people said who were there. The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the Speaker’s lobby after demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby. This is from our lawsuit. Two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door sidelight. Lt. Byrd, who is United States Capitol police officer, police commander, and was the incident commander for the house on January 6, 2021, shot Ashley on sight as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door side light.

Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashley before seeing her hands while or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as a female. Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Byrd and other officers in the lobby. The facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed. When she was shot by Lt. Byrd, multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. He’s still up there. You know what they did? They made him a captain. Despite his record, despite this unlawful, awful shooting, they made him a captain.

Basically an endorsement of the killing of an innocent woman by the leadership of Congress and the police administration, the U.S. capitol Police. It was an ambush as far as I’m concerned. So the major lawsuit over Ashley’s Death is over 4.9, $75 million settlement for her family. The litigation for records about Ashley continues by Judicial Watch. And the question is, is there going to be law enforcement action? Is there going to be a reopening of the investigation, a criminal investigation into the death of Ashley Babbitt? And again, I want to thank our team for doing this. The lawyer who is running this case, Robert Patrick Stick, spent Thousands of hours investigating this Aaron Babbitt, great, great guy, Mickey, who’s been not only advocating for justice for Ashley, but her mom, Ashley’s mom, Mickey has been.

No matter what’s happening in dc, you can be sure Mickey will be there advocating for Ashley. And she’s been a trooper in terms of advocating for the rights of the January 6th defendants who then thankfully, have been pardoned by President Trump. So just a great. And of course, you, dear Judicial Watch supporter, we’re only able to do this because of the support of our members. So if you’re giving donations to Judicial Watch, this is the type of work that it supports justice for Ashley Babbitt. And you know, one of my fondest memories, at least as it relates to this case, is talking about this issue before a crowd at cpac.

I think it was last year and I simply was kind of. It’s hard to tell from the video, but I was kind of overwhelmed by the powerful response. Let’s play that speech excerpt. I got very upset again recently about January 6th. I was rewatching the video of the needless killing of Ashley Babbitt, the Air Force veteran shot for no good reason by Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the US Capitol Police. Now, I’ve watched those videos. I can’t believe he just shot her dead like that. I just can’t believe it. And few in this corrupt city give a rat’s tale about that awful shooting.

But millions of Americans care and her family cares. I think her mom, Mickey is still here at cpac. Is Mickey here? Well, give her a round of applause anyway, God bless her. It. And that’s why I’m so pleased. Judicial Watch just filed a 30 million dollar wrongful death lawsuit against the US government on behalf of the family of Ashley Babbitt. As our lawsuit states, the facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Judicial Watch is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. I tell you what, if it takes 30 more years to get justice for Ashley, that will be time well spent.

So we did get justice for Ashley. And is it sufficient? It’s never going to be sufficient. She’s still bad. She’s the victim of a homicide. But this settlement certainly is a wonderful way of vindicating her, a veteran wife, daughter. And there are a few more important things that Judicial Watch has done over the decades I’ve been here at least than to try to get justice for her. So this settlement, again, thank you, Aaron. Thank you, Mickey. Thank you Robert, thank you, Judicial Watch supporters. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you to Trump Justice Department. And thank you, everyone else who is a citizen who’s been praying for justice for Ashley, because we got a good piece of justice for her just today.

So God bless Ashley and God bless America. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.