The publication is reproduced in full below:
CLARIFICATION TO REPRESENTATIVE LIZ CHENEY'S COMMENTS
______
HON. PAUL A. GOSAR
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 24, 2021
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address what I think, and what I think the record will establish, are errors pertaining to my inquiry into circumstances surrounding the killing of Ashli Babbitt.
There are rules of decorum in the House of Representatives. In debate, members are to ``avoid characterizing another Member's personal intent or motives and discussing personalities.'' Another rule is that members are to ``refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker, other Members.'' When made on the floor, such disrespectful behavior and boorish conduct is subject to objection to take down the words. But no such process applies when rude, impolite and candidly false statements are made about one member by another off the floor. So, I take this opportunity now to address and correct the incorrect statements uttered by Rep. Liz Cheney, the now former conference chair.
On June 16, 2021, Rep. Cheney tweeted the following: ``On January 6, as the violent mob advanced on the House chamber, I was standing near
@RepGosar and helped him open his gas mask. The Capitol Police led us to safety. It is disgusting and despicable to see Gosar lie about that day and smear the men and women who defended us.''
First, I did not wear a gas mask on January 6. Second, at no time have I ``smeared'' any of the ``men and women who defended us'' nor did I ``lie about that day.'' What I have done is ask questions and demanded transparency. I did express concerns over the actions of one Capitol Police officer, the one who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. Merely questioning the actions of one officer does not equate to questioning (much less ``smearing'') ``all'' the ``men and women who defended'' us, as stated by Ms. Cheney. This is a false comparison and not true at all.
I will not be intimidated by false implications. I will continue to seek transparency and find out why, who, and how the officer that killed Ashli Babbitt did what he did. There could be good, solid reasons for using lethal force at that moment. Perhaps he thought Ashli was armed with a knife, a bat, or a gun. Maybe he simply panicked. Unfortunately, with the evidence currently released, we have one video
(taken by a CNN collaborator who, while filming for CNN, urged people to ``bum'' the Capitol) and that video does not show a gun, a bat, or any weapon whatsoever. The video simply shows an unarmed woman starting to climb a window. If there is evidence to the contrary, I have called for its immediate release. I call for all the evidence, all video from that day, whether it incriminates or exonerates. The goal, my goal, is truth.
I have maintained my demand for release of all surveillance video. As it stands, all the American public has, in terms of evidence, is that
(1) Ashli Babbitt was in the process of a misdemeanor (entering federal property without permission); (2) Ashli was unarmed; (3) Ashli was a 14-year military veteran who loved her country, the Constitution, and wanted election integrity; (4) no verbal instructions or warnings were given; (5) no escalation of force continuum was considered or used prior to using lethal force; and (6) no aid was rendered by the officer once he killed Ashli. All of these factors suggest an unlawful use of force, and the American public has a right to find out if that is true. Getting to the bottom of this incident is not an indictment of all Capitol police officers and such a suggestion is not logical or fact based.
I have spoken to law enforcement experts. I have watched the only video that is publicly available of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. The officer that shot Ms. Babbitt is seen on the video hiding in a vestibule. All that can be seen are his hands holding a loaded side arm pointing at Ms. Babbitt. For approximately 14 seconds. The only video available shows no verbal or non-verbal warnings. No effort to tell Ms. Babbitt not to climb through the window. No effort to push her back or use non-lethal force of any type. Rather, after hiding in a vestibule and aiming for 14 seconds, the officer fires one round from the side, killing Ms. Babbitt. Thus, this officer went from ``officer presence'' straight to lethal force, and skipped verbal commands, soft controls, hard controls and intermediate weapons. The jump to lethal force needs to be fully reviewed and investigated. At present, it does not appear justified. If there is justification, release the evidence now.
One law enforcement expert I talked to described this as lying in wait to shoot someone and a criminal offense. This was not acceptable police work. I reject the comment that one must either support every police officer 100 percent of the time or be ``against'' law enforcement, or to quote my colleague, to ``smear'' all police officers everywhere. Such notions are not worthy of serious discussion. I put my record of support for law enforcement up for comparison to anyone. But support need not be blind . . . or stupid. I can take issue with a bad cop. I can take issue with a bad killing. To see this swept under the rug under some false pretext of ``he was protecting Congress'' is as ridiculous as it is insulting. Using that logic, no police officer would ever be challenged on any killing--``He was trying to uphold the law.'' Using this logic, that would end the inquiry. That is not how our laws work.
Life is not that simple. The law of self-defense and the defense of others is based on the circumstances. Was the attacker armed? Did the officer have time to use non-lethal force? Was there backup? Was the suspect warned or commanded? What exactly was the risk? Trespassing risk is different than a risk of assault or murder. In this case, Ashli may or may not have been trespassing. I say this only because depending on what door she went through, some of the people in the Capitol on January 6th were literally invited in by the guards. But assuming she was trespassing, did she pose an imminent risk of death to the officer or someone else? This unarmed 110-pound woman, who was draped in a flag and trying to climb a window? Why did the Officer wait 14 seconds to shoot all the while aiming at her? Why did he not audibly warn her? Why didn't he step out of his hiding place and confront her? Or use a taser? Or a baton? Or simply push her back out?
These issues, and the professional opinion of a law enforcement expert, lead to the conclusion that the officer that shot Ashli Babbitt was lying in wait, hid for 14 seconds, then used lethal force to kill an unarmed, non-threatening woman. If that is true, then no way does this constitute a lawful killing. The fact that some members think it is acceptable police work, and call me a liar for pointing out these so far undisputed facts, reflects more on naked hatred for the truth than a love of transparency and honesty. If anyone thinks this is good police work, release all the evidence so we can discuss it. I stand by my concerns, and my questions, and I stand with the American people who demand answers.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 110
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up