FBI files accessed by Judicial Watch have exposed that following the events of Jan. 6, 2021, the FBI considered classifying Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran shot and killed by Capitol Police during the protests, as a terrorist. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request led to the disclosure of 62 documents that show how aggressively the agency worked to smear Babbit in an effort to manipulate the narrative surrounding the protests.

For months, the FBI investigated Babbitt over potential violations of federal law, including “rioting.” The agency even considered for a time adding her name to its terrorist watchlist. Agents ultimately decided against that course, given the circumstances of her death and the public relations disaster that could have resulted.

StopHate has reported extensively on the circumstances surrounding Babbitt’s death in the form of numerous free documentaries.

In response to the FBI’s actions, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton criticized the Biden administration’s approach, highlighting a perceived imbalance in justice. He said it is “beyond belief” that the agency engaged in a lengthy investigation of Babbitt while it gave her “killer a free pass.” 

FBI probed Ashli Babbitt, saw her as terrorist, after her Jan. 6 death @TomFitton @JudicialWatch 'Beyond belief Biden FBI gave Ashli Babbitt's killer a free pass while engaging in a malicious ‘criminal’ investigation of Babbitt herself'https://t.co/v2gC3UeeZg via @dcexaminer pic.twitter.com/ruSJziqQhw

— Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) April 10, 2024

The case has taken a legal turn, with Judicial Watch filing a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of Babbitt’s family. The suit claims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to transfer the case from California to Washington, D.C., is a strategy to find a more sympathetic court. Judicial Watch is defending the motion by arguing that the Biden DOJ is only interested in moving the case to Washington so the government will enjoy an anti-Trump judge and jury and can better maintain control of the narrative surrounding Jan. 6. 

“The request for a venue change is influenced by the defendant’s strongest motivation for changing venue, which is to select the forum where it feels it would receive a favorable process and outcome based on adversity against Jan. 6 participants,” Judicial Watch wrote in a court filing.

As the legal battle unfolds, monitoring how these developments influence public opinion and legal standards concerning protest-related activities and law enforcement’s accountability in high-stakes incidents will be crucial.