- WESTERN JOURNALISM - JULY 25, 2021 - Tarra Snyder -
After nearly eight months of questions and controversy surrounding the events of Jan. 6, the most prominent question remains unanswered: Who killed Ashli Babbitt?
Michelle Witthoeft, Babbitt’s mother, says Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is responsible for her daughter’s death.
“My daughter was a California constituent, and Nancy Pelosi not only, I feel like, orchestrated the death of my daughter.”
“I’ve reached out to Nancy Pelosi’s office several times, and she has yet to call me back because she’s too busy playing in her clubhouse with all of her elite people,” Witthoeft said.
She also reminded Nancy of her place in the government.
“You know, it’s the people’s house. It’s not your house, Nancy. It’s the people’s house. That’s my message to Nancy Pelosi,” Witthoeft said.
Despite the many claims of violence that occurred on Jan. 6, evidence has yet to surface suggesting Babbitt herself was reckless or threatening.
An earlier report from The Western Journal found that there had been no documented reports of Babbitt starting fires or attacking police officers.
Her mother wants to know who is responsible for her death.
“The Capitol Police should be held accountable like every other police department in the country.”
Witthoeft isn’t the only one fighting for Babbitt.
In a July 1 statement, former President Donald Trump asked only the following question: “Who shot Ashli Babbitt?”
Trump’s statement brought national awareness to the issue, causing Babbitt’s name to trend on Twitter.
Back in April, Babbitt’s family announced that they were suing the Capitol Police for “at least $10 million” in damages.
For the suit to be successful, the family would have to prove that the officer responsible had used “constitutionally unreasonable” force against Babbitt.
On April 14, after conducting an investigation, the Department of Justice released a statement on the matter.
“Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully,’ which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law,” the DOJ said.
“As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.”
Para acessar o Conteúdo acima, acesse a Home Page aqui. https://www.heitordepaola.online/