[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 110 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E692-E693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         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

[[Page E693]]

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.

                          ____________________