Retiring Capitol Police chief takes shots at Jan. 6 protester Ashli Babbitt, settlement of civil lawsuit



Retiring U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger took some parting shots at the late Ashli Babbitt on his way out the door, claiming in a May 2 internal memo that she “attacked the U.S. Capitol” and ignored police orders to stay out of the Speaker’s Lobby hallway where she was shot to death by Lt. Michael Byrd.

The two-page letter was read at all roll calls, posted on bulletin boards, and distributed by email. It expresses Manger’s disdain for the U.S. Department of Justice agreeing to settle the Babbitt family’s $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit filed against the federal government on Jan. 5, 2024.

Attorneys for Judicial Watch Inc. and the DOJ told a federal judge on May 2 they had reached a “settlement in principle” that should be finalized within weeks. No financial terms were disclosed.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the settlement is “going to be historic!” Judicial Watch represents Aaron Babbitt and his late wife’s estate in the lawsuit against the federal government.

A status report that Judicial Watch and the DOJ filed with U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on May 6 did not include an update on the expected timing to finalize the settlement.

It did, however, propose that Babbitt’s former attorney, Terrell N. Roberts III, enter into fee arbitration with the Attorney Client Arbitration Board of the District of Columbia Bar. Roberts opposes that solution, the court filing said. Roberts’ attempts to secure a restraining order and a 25% lien on the final settlement were rebuffed by Judge Reyes. Roberts withdrew from the Babbitt case in late February 2022.

Manger’s letter makes several questionable contentions, including that Babbitt ignored orders by police to stay out of the Speaker’s Lobby.

Ashli Babbitt punches rioter Zachary Jordan Alam in the nose after he smashed out several windows in the entrance to the Speaker's Lobby in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Babbitt was fatally shot seconds later.Blaze News graphic from Sam Montoya photograph. Used with permission.

According to video shot by journalist Tayler Hansen, he and Babbitt freely walked into the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby at 2:36 p.m. On the way, they passed Jason Gandolph, a plainclothes House Sergeant at Arms officer. Hansen greeted him and said, “Stay safe.” Gandolph was walking and looking at his phone at the time.

Three U.S. Capitol Police officers were standing at the end of the hall outside the Speaker’s Lobby: Officer Kyle Yetter, Sgt. Timothy Lively, and Officer Christopher Lanciano. Hansen offered the officers a water bottle while Babbitt talked to the trio. They were the only ones in the hall with Babbitt and Hansen until other protesters began filling the space a short time later.

'We’ve got to start thinking about getting the people out.'

Gandolph told investigators that Babbitt helped to smash the glass in the doors and windows of the Speaker’s Lobby entrance. Video from the hallway shows, however, that Babbitt did not touch the doors or the glass, but she did shout at the officers to “call f**king help!”

“In 2021 the DOJ said there was no evidence to show law enforcement broke the law, yet now the DOJ is agreeing to pay a settlement,” Manger wrote.

A 14-page DOJ memo on the killing of Babbitt by then-Lt. Byrd, now a captain, was released in June 2022 by Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The memo said there was “insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lt. Byrd violated Ms. [Babbitt’s] civil rights by willfully using more force than was reasonably necessary, or was not acting in self-defense or the defense of others.”

Lt. Michael L. Byrd, who killed Ashli Babbitt at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has 'significant' discipline history including gun incidents, U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) disclosed in November 2024.Photos by Judicial Watch, John Sullivan

The DOJ memo has been criticized because it cited the wrong legal standard for determining whether police use of lethal force is justified. The “gold standard” is the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor.The High Court said police use of force should be judged on the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard without regard for the officer’s subjective state of mind.

“An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional,” the court said.

Even if the force Byrd used in killing Babbitt was unreasonable, “the government must show that an officer acted willfully, that is, with the specific intent to deprive the victim of a constitutional right,” the DOJ report said. In this context, “willfully” means that an act “was done voluntarily and intentionally, and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids; that is with a bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.”

'I asked for permission to evacuate. I heard no response.'

Stanley Kephart, a police use-of-force expert who has testified in court cases more than 350 times, said use of the term “willfully” is from a 1985 U.S. Court of Appeals case from the Fifth Circuit, United States v. Garza. He said it should not be applied to Byrd’s killing of Babbitt.

“The highest culpable mental state in committing a crime is ‘knowingly’ and Captain Byrd did just that,” Kephart said. “Willingly does not apply.”

Byrd did not write any reports on the shooting and refused to make a statement to internal affairs investigators. His only public statement on the shooting was made in a televised August 2021 interview with NBC anchor Lester Holt. Byrd said he feared for his life at the time he fired his service weapon. He said, however, he could not tell if the person climbing into the broken window was armed or even what sex the person was.

Kephart said he believes the Biden DOJ had a pre-ordained conclusion to the shooting probe. He called the DOJ report a “total miscarriage of justice.”

“The glaring thing about it, they picked the Garza decision, which was an aged decision. Graham v. Connor is the newest Supreme Court finding and that’s why it is the gold standard,” Kephart said. “For them to go back in time and pick an aged decision that was friendly to them is a clear indication of what they were attempting to do.”

Video from the hallway where violence broke out shows Babbitt tried to stop the rioting and shouted at officers to call for backup. Just before she climbed into the broken side window and was shot, she punched rioter Zachary J. Alam in the nose and knocked off his glasses. Alam had just used a black riot helmet to smash the glass out of the side window. Had Alam climbed into the broken window before Babbitt punched him, he most likely would have been shot.

“While illegally inside the building, she disregarded the orders of police to stay out of the Speaker’s Lobby and instead climbed through a broken window, which had just been smashed by a fellow rioter, in her attempt to access members of Congress who were being evacuated from the Capitol,” Manger wrote.

New Judicial Watch video covers 19 minutes in the Jan. 6 life and death of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt.Photos by Aaron Babbitt, Jayden X, Judicial Watch, and Sam Montoya

Byrd told Holt that he repeatedly screamed at the rioters to “get back.” Byrd was wearing a black COVID mask at the time. Other officers in the Speaker’s Lobby gave conflicting reports on whether commands were shouted to those outside the entrance.

Witnesses along the outside of the lobby entrance said they did not hear warnings or other statements from inside the Speaker’s Lobby. The crowd, which had grown to at least 55-60 people, made considerable noise. The three USCP officers posted at the door said they did not hear any commands from inside the Speaker’s Lobby. Nor were any commands heard on videos filmed in the hallway.

Aaron Babbitt said his wife, 35, who was a military policewoman in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard, would not have continued through the window if she had seen or heard Lt. Byrd.

Video showed the members of Congress were going downstairs toward the subway when Hansen and Babbitt first walked into the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby. A few members remained in the House Chamber to help guard the main House entrance, but the evacuation was otherwise complete by the time Babbitt jumped up into the window.

Manger said the lawsuit settlement “is insulting to every officer who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and those who feared for their life on that dark day.”

Former lieutenant raps Manger

One former Capitol Police officer went public with his opposition to Manger’s memo. Former Lt. Tarik K. Johnson, who first posted Manger’s letter May 5 on X, called the document “partisan.”

“How should he (Manger) be allowed to take a partisan position from the chair of a police chief when some could easily articulate his behavior as an abuse of power as his rant was put on USCP letterhead and distributed,” Johnson said.

— (@)

In March, Manger announced he was retiring after nearly four years on the job. His announced last day was May 2, but a Capitol Police source told Blaze News that Manger was still on duty on May 6.

“How do we tolerate Manger criticizing the current administration in a civil matter without questioning his judgement and ability to lead a police agency that has a requirement to remain neutral and protect all members of the congressional community and visitors to the Capitol complex,” Johnson wrote, “not just those who share his political views.”

Johnson was suspended by Capitol Police for nearly 18 months after Jan. 6, ostensibly because he wore a red MAGA cap while he and and two Oath Keepers evacuated 16 police officers from inside the Capitol’s Columbus Doors. Johnson has said the cap made the crowds more receptive and helped him move up and down the east steps unmolested. He said the cap was like having a helmet for protection.

Capitol Police Lt. Tarik K. Johnson asks for assistance from retired police Sgt. Michael Nichols (right) and Steve Clayton (center). Both Oath Keepers, Nichols and Clayton helped Johnson evacuate 16 police officers from inside the Columbus Doors on Jan. 6, 2021.Rico La Starza

The suspension that Johnson said made him a virtual prisoner in his own home was really meted out because he ordered the evacuation of the U.S. Senate on Jan. 6 after the USCP Command Center failed to answer repeated radio transmissions seeking authorization, he said. Video shows just as the last senators hustled down the stairs, a raucous crowd was moving toward the Senate entrance from an adjacent hallway.

Johnson then headed toward the House and ordered members to evacuate the building. He gave Sgt. Nelson Vargas instructions over the radio on which door and stairway to use to reach the Capitol Subway System. It isn’t known why Byrd did not evacuate the House after rioters smashed the Senate Wing Door windows at 2:12 p.m. and crowds poured into the building. Byrd was the Capitol Police commander for the House and Senate on Jan. 6.

“There was no response from anybody at the Command Center,” Johnson said in a January 2023 interview. “I say even before I initiated evacuation, I say specifically, ‘We’ve got to start thinking about getting the people out before we don’t have a chance to.’ I heard no response. Then I asked for permission to evacuate. I heard no response.”

In addition to Johnson’s pleas for help, the Capitol Police dispatcher repeatedly asked for authorization for the evacuation. He was met with radio silence.

Johnson said if the evacuation of Congress had started when he first asked Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman and the Command Center for help, Byrd wouldn’t have been near the Speaker’s Lobby entrance, and the House chamber would have been empty if the crowd had breached the barricaded doors.

“I made the evacuation order at approximately 2:28 for the Senate, and then I did it maybe six to eight minutes later for the House,” Johnson said.

Manger said his department and the Metropolitan Police Department did a “comprehensive review of all the available evidence” in the shooting.

Shortly after shooting Babbitt at 2:44 p.m. on Jan. 6, Byrd made a false broadcast on Capitol Police radio claiming that he was taking gunfire and was preparing to return fire. The false assertion was never corrected on the air, leaving SWAT officers streaming into the Capitol to wonder if the scene was secure or if a shooter was on the loose in the Capitol. Neither the DOJ report nor the MPD shooting investigation report made reference to Byrd’s radio transmission.

Frick and Frack (left) are escorted to a meeting with Capitol Police. An unmarked squad car (upper right) arrives at the south barricade with Capitol Police officers. Officer Rick Larity (lower right) and Sgt. Sarah Smithers approach Frick and Frack for a meeting inside the squad car.U.S. Capitol Police/CCTV security video

Police did not attempt to detain any of the more than 50 people in the Speaker’s Lobby hallway to take witness statements. As far as is publicly known, none of them was detained for questioning about the shooting, and none of their witness accounts appeared in the MPD or DOJ shooting investigation reports.

Two men, nicknamed “Frick and Frack” by a YouTube personality in 2021, stood behind the police line down the stairs from the lobby entrance as four Capitol Police SWAT officers came up from the first floor.

After protesters and rioters were forced to exit, Frick and Frack approached USCP Deputy Chief Eric Waldow in the hallway and volunteered to be witnesses. As a 2024 Blaze News investigation showed, the men were escorted from the building by Capitol Police K-9 technician Bruce Acheson and taken to meet with Capitol Police detectives in an unmarked squad car at the edge of Capitol grounds.

Frack gave police a short video clip taken in the Speaker’s Lobby hallway at the time of the shooting, but was apparently allowed to leave without providing all of the extensive video he shot on the Capitol west front, inside the building, and from the front rows of the Speaker’s Lobby hallway during the melee. The man’s name was redacted in the MPD shooting report. Some brief information on him was included in an MPD investigation memo.

Video showed Frick and Frack set up makeshift ladders out of police barricades to allow protesters to more easily climb onto the balustrade of the Northwest Steps and proceed into the Capitol. They have not been publicly identified and were never arrested or charged.

Kephart said the 2021 DOJ report should have delved more into Byrd’s service and discipline record. He urged that Byrd’s shooting investigation be reopened by the Trump DOJ.

The DOJ report includes nearly a dozen factual errors, some of which were repeated in the Manger letter.

‘Significant’ discipline history

In November 2024, U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, sent Manger a letter outlining Byrd’s “significant” history of discipline cases.

In one 2004 incident, Byrd was found by the Office of Professional Responsibility to have fired his Capitol Police service weapon into the rear of a van that was fleeing his Maryland neighborhood. His neighbor was in the line of fire, Loudermilk said. Byrd told investigators he shot into the windshield as the van drove directly at him.

U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd appears to have his finger on the trigger of his service weapon while walking on the U.S. House floor as rioters broke windows at the House entrance at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Photo by Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images. Graphic overlay by Blaze News

The OPR investigation found Byrd violated the USCP weapons and use-of-force policies by firing his gun in a “careless and imprudent manner.” Byrd appealed the finding to the Disciplinary Review Board, which overturned the OPR findings, according to Loudermilk.

In another discipline case revealed in a Blaze News exclusive, Byrd was recommended for termination in 2001 for abandoning his post in House Speaker Denny Hastert’s office for a card game in a nearby cloakroom, then lying about it to Internal Affairs Division investigators.

Loudermilk’s Nov. 20 letter also detailed the favorable treatment Byrd has received by USCP since Jan. 6, including $36,000 in unrestricted retention funds, $21,000 in security upgrades at his Prince George’s County, Md., home, and a GoFundMe campaign that raised $164,206 for Byrd.

Capitol Police paid to house Byrd at the Joint Base Andrews military facility from July 2021 until late January 2022 at a cost of more than $35,000, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch Inc.

Capitol Police general counsel Thomas A. “Tad” DiBiase met with Jamie Fleet, staff director for then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to discuss options to help Byrd, according to email uncovered by congressional investigators, Loudermilk said. Pelosi had earlier said she wanted Byrd “taken care of,” according to a Blaze News source who directly witnessed the statement during a meeting.

Loudermilk gave Manger a long list of questions and document requests at the close of his letter. The deadline was Dec. 4, 2024. A congressional source said Manger never replied to Loudermilk’s letter. The 118th Congress ended on Jan. 3, 2025. Five months after the start of the 119th Congress, the House has not yet established a successor committee or subcommittee to investigate Jan. 6.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican senator turns against key Trump nominee, potentially empowering activist Judge Boasberg



Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he will not be supporting Ed Martin, President Donald Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., which could lead to some unintended consequences.

After meeting with Martin Monday night, Tillis told reporters that he opposed Martin's nomination due to "concerns related to January 6." Notably, Martin was a defense attorney for January 6 protesters and has long advocated for those who he says were wrongly prosecuted in the aftermath of the riot for political purposes.

With Tillis acting as a roadblock to Trump's agenda, it's possible that Boasberg will be able to tilt the scales in his favor.

"I met with Mr. Martin; he seems like a good man," Tillis said. "Most of my concerns related to January 6, and he built a compelling case on some of the 15 or 12 prosecutions that were probably 'heat of the moment' bad decisions. But where we probably have a difference is I think anybody that breached the perimeter should have been in prison for some period of time. Whether it's 30 days or three years is debatable, but I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6."

"If Mr. Martin were being put forth as a U.S. attorney for any district except the district where January 6 happened, the protest happened, I'd probably support him," Tillis added. "But not in this district."

Martin has been serving as interim U.S. attorney for the district since Trump's inauguration, but his interim term is set to expire on May 19. If the Senate fails to confirm Martin before then, his replacement will be chosen by activist judge and MAGA combatant Judge James Boasberg.

Boasberg has been a thorn in Trump's side for several weeks now, primarily for issuing rulings that have halted and disrupted the administration's efforts to carry out mass deportations.

With Tillis acting as a roadblock to Trump's agenda, it's possible that Boasberg will be able to tilt the scales in his favor.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Republican turncoat courts a Trump judgeship



At first glance, Erin Nealy Cox might seem like a safe bet for traditional Republicans. She calls herself a “Texas Republican” and served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas under President Donald Trump, confirmed in late 2017.

But like many Trump-era appointees, she quickly revealed herself as just another creature of the swamp. Republican voters shouldn’t trust her.

Cox, whose family roots run deep in Texas Republican politics, expects to glide into a federal judgeship without scrutiny.

Cox is now one of nearly two dozen candidates seeking a federal judgeship in North Texas. Her record deserves scrutiny.

In the aftermath of January 6, she issued a statement condemning the protesters — without acknowledging that every person who died that day supported Trump. “Forcibly storming a government building is a reprehensible betrayal of the rule of law,” she wrote. In a post amplifying her statement, she added, “Those who committed violence in Washington today are anarchists, not patriots. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Cox has never addressed the growing body of evidence that contradicts the official January 6 narrative.

She stepped down from her post just two days later, on Jan. 8, 2021. Although her resignation had been announced in December and wasn’t formally tied to the events at the Capitol, the timing still raises questions. She claimed she was making way for a Biden appointee — a routine move when the presidency changes hands. Even so, the context matters.

On Jan. 7, the day before she left office, Cox filed a controversial deferred prosecution agreement in the case involving Boeing’s 737 MAX crashes, which killed 346 people. The deal shielded Boeing executives from criminal charges and didn’t require a guilty plea. Columbia Law Professor John Coffee called it “one of the worst deferred prosecution agreements I have seen,” and “without precedent.”

Boeing’s criminal defense team included Mark Filip, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.

Just months later, in June, Cox joined the same firm — now a partner herself. In plain terms: She let one of Kirkland’s clients off the hook, then took a job at the firm.

Kirkland hasn’t exactly been friendly to Trump or his policies. During his first term, the firm provided pro bono representation to asylum seekers, migrants, and others held in ICE detention. They actively opposed the administration’s “family separation” policy.

That section of their website has vanished. Only archived versions on the Wayback Machine remain, and even those appear to have been pulled sometime around March.

The firm also fought Trump’s efforts to end DACA, offering free legal services to recipients and filing lawsuits on their behalf. Like the rest, that work has disappeared from their website. The same goes for their involvement in lawsuits challenging Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban,” as reported by the legal blog "Above the Law."

In the end, Trump may have had the last laugh, but Cox’s career trajectory speaks volumes.

Kirkland would later cut a deal with the second Trump administration in April to provide $125 million worth of pro bono legal services to avoid punitive executive orders and resolve investigations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission into the firm’s DEI practices.

Meanwhile, Cox’s husband, John “Trey” Cox, has donated extensively to Democrats over the past decade. Here are some lowlights:

These donations, some as recent as 2023, paint a clear picture: This is not a household aligned with Republican priorities. Yet Cox, whose family roots run deep in Texas Republican politics, expects to glide into a federal judgeship without scrutiny.

Republicans can’t afford that mistake.

Cox’s condemnation of January 6 protesters, her husband’s funding of judges who undermine conservative goals, and her post-resignation alignment with a firm hostile to Trump all signal the same thing: She’s not on our side.

She may be one of nearly two dozen candidates for the North Texas seat — but her record should take her out of the running.

Dems’ newest congressional candidate is proof the deep state is real

'I’m stepping out of the shadows to run for Congress'

Hero or hoax? The real story behind Harry Dunn’s FBI interviews



My interest in former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn began on Oct. 6, 2022 — the third day of the first Oath Keepers trial at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, D.C.

Shortly after a recess and before the jury returned to the courtroom, lead prosecutor and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Nestler approached the lectern. He informed U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that Jonathon Moseley — a recently disbarred attorney — had threatened to release two confidential FBI documents known as “302s.”

Much of what Dunn described in his FBI interviews, congressional testimony, court appearances, and even his book and media tour simply didn’t happen.

Form FD-302 consists of written notes and recollections recorded by an FBI special agent following an interview. In this instance, Nestler referred to two 302s based on separate interviews with Officer Dunn. The FBI conducted the first interview in May 2021 and the second in August 2021.

Nestler stated that both forms remained sealed by the court and were labeled either “sensitive” or “highly sensitive.” Moseley, however, argued that the documents could now be released publicly because the House Select Committee on January 6 had introduced them as part of its proceedings.

What I saw looked like a pre-orchestrated performance between Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Nestler and Judge Amit Mehta — the first of several such moments I witnessed during that trial. Mehta appeared furious at the idea that Moseley believed he could release something still under his seal.

I watched the exchange unfold from the media room on the first floor of the district courthouse. That room received live audio and video feeds from the courtroom upstairs, where the trial was taking place. On a typical day during the nine-week trial, 20 to 30 journalists gathered there to cover proceedings. It was the only place in the courthouse where we could use laptops and other electronic devices, which were banned in the courtroom itself.

Most reporters spent their time compiling notes for end-of-day write-ups. But a small group of us tweeted the proceedings in real time.

After Nestler informed the judge of Moseley’s threat to release the FBI 302s, Mehta responded in a way I had never seen before.

He turned his attention to the journalists in the media room and instructed us to “tweet out” a message directly to Moseley: If he released the 302s — or any other documents still protected under court seal — Mehta would hold him in contempt of court.

“He’ll find out,” the judge said.

What was in there?

The media room burst into laughter at Judge Mehta’s directive that we do his bidding and relay his warning. Within seconds, keyboards clattered as journalists rushed to compose their own versions of the judge’s threat, broadcasting it across social media.

Each day of the trial, I took my place in the back right corner of the media room. I was a newcomer among a group of seasoned courtroom reporters — an outsider observing the insiders. During the first two weeks, the courthouse remained under a COVID-19 masking mandate. From my seat, I could let my mask dangle from one ear without attracting much attention — or the disapproval of my more dutiful colleagues.

That vantage point also gave me a clear view of the room. I could watch what the other reporters were typing, observe their screens, and monitor how they shaped the narrative.

While they laughed and tweeted Mehta’s warning to Moseley, I kept my focus elsewhere. One question consumed my thoughts: What is in those two 302s?

What exactly did those two FBI forms contain that the prosecution — and the judge — didn’t want the jury or the American public to see?

One clue had already surfaced on social media. It came from Dunn’s May 18, 2021, FBI interview, cited in a pretrial motion filed by Stewart Rhodes’ attorney, Edward Tarpley. A footnote on page 12 of the filing quoted the following excerpt:

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn informed all protestors they needed to leave and told the Oath Keepers that the protestors were fighting officers. The Oath Keepers advised Dunn they would help keep the protestors from the lower west terrace area. Dunn advised he allowed them to stand in front of him to help keep the protestors from getting down the stairs. Dunn left this area when he was relieved by USCP riot officers.
— FBI Interview of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, May 18, 2021, page 2, publicly disclosed by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

This account — Dunn’s own description of his encounter with four Oath Keepers at the top of a Capitol staircase near the Rotunda — appeared to support their claim that they had helped de-escalate a volatile situation. Rather than confronting the officer, the Oath Keepers allegedly positioned themselves between Dunn and a more aggressive crowd, attempting to prevent further escalation.

I had to get my hands on those 302s — and eventually, I did.

Inventions and evasions

The second 302, based on Officer Harry Dunn’s August 16, 2021, interview with the FBI, told a very different story from the first. In that follow-up, Dunn completely reversed his account. He now claimed he never gave the four Oath Keepers permission to assist him at the top of the staircase. Instead, he described the interaction as hostile, saying they tried to force their way past him.

Dunn also invented a second encounter — this one taking place a floor below, in the crypt. In that version, he said another group, also wearing militia-style gear resembling the Oath Keepers’, attempted to position themselves between him and a more aggressive crowd of protesters.

The contrast between the two interviews raised more questions than answers.

Although I’ve never publicly released the two 302s, both proved invaluable. They offered critical details — and pointed me toward what to watch for once Congress finally granted journalists access to the long-promised 41,000 hours of Capitol CCTV footage from January 6.

Drawing from that surveillance footage, D.C. Metropolitan Police body-worn cameras, and other open-source videos released during various January 6 trials, Blaze Media has been able to confirm a troubling pattern: Much of what Harry Dunn described in his FBI interviews, congressional testimony, court appearances, and even his book and media tour simply didn’t happen.

Two weeks before the October 2023 release of his book, “Standing My Ground: A Capitol Police Officer's Fight for Accountability and Good Trouble After January 6th,” Dunn agreed to meet with me for an off-the-record conversation. We spent four hours together at the U.S. Capitol Arboretum.

Because the meeting was off the record, I can’t disclose anything Dunn said. But I came prepared with some frank and direct points of my own. By then, I had already spent days in the Capitol CCTV viewing room, combing through surveillance footage we would later call “A Day in the Life of Harry Dunn.” I had also read an advance copy of his book.

To say the video evidence and his personal narrative about January 6 don’t match is putting it mildly. It's the understatement of the century.

I shared with Dunn several specific examples where the video evidence directly contradicted his claims of heroism and derring-do on January 6. Eventually, he asked how I planned to write his story.

“Harry, the media, Congress, even the president — they’ve made you a national hero,” I told him. “But I can make you a real hero if you give me the names of those who pushed you to change your story about the Oath Keepers in that second FBI interview.”

After that, I walked him to his car. He said he’d think about it.

But he never gave me those names.

FBI Analyst Who Resigned Over Kash Patel Announces Congressional Run

'Last week, after nearly 17 years on the job, I resigned from the FBI'

Declassified Document Reveals Biden’s Scheme To Spy On Americans

'Perhaps most concerning are details of the administration’s attempts at ideological control.'

Dan Bongino publicly responds to FBI appointment of J6-obsessed official



In a move no conservative saw coming, a key player in the January 6 witch hunts was recently named the assistant director of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

That key player is Steven Jensen.

While conservatives had been counting on newly crowned FBI Director Kash Patel to root out people like Jensen, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino posted a few cryptic X posts that seemed to defend the FBI’s decision to give him the position.

“As I dive back into work, I want to reassure you that nothing that is happening here is happening by accident. Because of the sensitivity of what the FBI deals with, both the Director and I have to be circumspect in what we can make public. Bad guys read this stuff too. Neither one of us came here to play games,” Bongino wrote in a post on X.


“Measure us by results. You will see them. But just because you don’t see something happening right this second, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening,” he continued, noting that not every decision made will “please everyone,” and they won’t be “pandering” in order to do so.

“When you see something happen, and the entire story isn’t public, and the underlying facts aren’t all public, it may appear counterintuitive to our reform agenda,” he wrote in a follow-up post, adding, “I promise you, it’s not an accident.”

“We are assuming that Bongino was responding to this controversy,” Blaze News investigative reporter Steve Baker tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson on “Blaze News Tonight.” “If, in fact, he was responding to that, it still does not answer one of the hardest questions that I think and one of the most important questions that I have.”

That question, Baker reveals, is, “Why have we been a week and a half into this appointment and there’s been no announcement from the FBI, not even the lowest level public relations or spokesperson from the FBI?”

That includes FBI Director Kash Patel.

“There’s always an announcement about important positions when they are filled like this, and for him to take over the most important position in the Washington Field Office with no announcement, no press release,” Baker says, noting that the controversy surrounding the move would be incredibly hard for them to ignore.

“And still, the only thing that we have seen posted from Kash Patel on his X account so far is the intramural fundraising hockey game that they had in Chicago, and maybe a couple of other arrests, but nothing to do with this particular controversy whatsoever,” Baker continues.

“So they are obviously ignoring it for some reason,” he adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

President Trump says he’s ‘going to take a look at’ fatal Jan. 6 shooting of Ashli Babbitt



President Donald J. Trump said he plans to investigate the “unthinkable” Jan. 6 fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt and why the U.S. Department of Justice is still opposing the $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Aaron Babbitt and Judicial Watch.

In a March 25 interview with Greg Kelly of Newsmax, President Trump said he plans to look into Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, who killed Babbitt from a hidden position, allegedly before even establishing whether she was armed or otherwise a threat. Byrd has said he feared for his life.

'She was innocently standing there.'

Kelly noted that Byrd — who is now a captain assigned to a training role making nearly $190,000 a year — was promoted in 2023 and given a medal by the Biden administration in the wake of the fatal shooting.

“I think it’s a disgrace,” President Trump said. “I’m going to take a look at it. I’m going to look at that, too. His reputation was, I won’t even say. Let’s find out about his reputation, OK? We’re going to find out.”

Trump’s comment seemed a likely reference to a letter released in late 2024 by U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who detailed Byrd’s history of alleged aggressive personal behavior and reckless use of his service weapon. Loudermilk, then chairman of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, said the records of three disciplinary cases against Byrd were somehow missing.

Writing to Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, Loudermilk said Byrd was given $36,000 in unrestricted funds as a “retention bonus” in 2021, while other Capitol Police officers received around $3,000 each. Byrd was reimbursed for more than $21,000 in security upgrades for his personal residence in Prince George’s County, Md.

Manger recently announced his plans to retire, effective May 2.

U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd appears to have his finger on the trigger of his service weapon while walking on the U.S. House floor as rioters broke windows at the House entrance at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Photo by Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Graphic overlay by Blaze News

Byrd complained bitterly in emails at the slow pace of an ultimately doomed plan to provide him with cash from the Capitol Police Officers Memorial Fund, Loudermilk’s letter said.

Capitol Police paid to house Byrd at the Joint Base Andrews military facility from July 2021 until late January 2022 at a cost of more than $35,000, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch Inc. When he left the base for any reason, Byrd was provided with a Capitol Police dignitary protection detail, which a source told Blaze News could easily cost $425 per hour.

A Blaze News investigation found that Byrd was recommended for termination for a 2001 incident for reportedly abandoning his post in the House Speaker’s Office for a card game in a nearby cloakroom and lying about it to Internal Affairs Division investigators.

House investigators also detailed a case in which Byrd allegedly fired at a fleeing vehicle outside his home, then lied to local police, saying the van was driving directly at him when he fired his Capitol Police service weapon.

— (@)

President Trump indicated he wasn’t aware that the DOJ continues to oppose the $30 million federal wrongful-death lawsuit filed on Jan. 5, 2024.

“I’ll look into that. You’re just telling me that for the first time,” Trump told Kelly. “I haven’t heard that.

“I’m a big fan of Ashli Babbitt, OK?” Trump said. “Ashli Babbitt was a really good person who was a big MAGA fan, Trump fan, and she was innocently standing there — they even say trying to sort of hold back the crowd — and a man did something to her that was unthinkable when he shot her. I think it’s a disgrace. I’m going to look into that. I did not know that.”

'We’re prepared to fire back at them. We have guns drawn.'

While the legacy media have painted the veteran of 14 years in the U.S. Air Force and several years in the D.C. National Guard as a rioter and insurrectionist, ample video from the hallway where she was shot proves she tried to stop the violence that erupted.

Babbitt shouted at three Capitol Police officers standing outside the Speaker’s Lobby entrance to “call f**king help” as rioter Zachary Alam bashed out the windows leading into the Speaker’s Lobby.

Babbitt eventually put a stop to Alam’s rioting when she planted a left hook on his nose and knocked off his glasses. Seconds later, she tried to climb out a broken window just behind Alam and was immediately shot by Byrd.

Trump’s investigation into the Babbitt shooting will undoubtedly uncover video showing that Byrd didn’t follow through on the shooting by advancing on Babbitt’s position after she fell to determine whether she was an active threat. He fired from a hidden position into a crowd of dozens of people, including seven Capitol Police officers.

Byrd retreated into the seating area of Speaker’s Lobby and within a minute made a false broadcast on police radio claiming that he was under fire and was “prepared to fire back.”

“We got shots fired in the lobby. We got fot [sic], shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber,” Byrd said on Capitol Police radio. “Shots are being fired at us, and we’re prepared to fire back at them. We have guns drawn.”

Ashli Babbitt punches rioter Zachary Jordan Alam in the nose after he smashed out several windows in the entrance to the Speaker's Lobby at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Babbitt was fatally shot seconds later. Blaze News graphic from Sam Montoya photograph. Used with permission.

Aaron Babbitt’s lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch Inc. said that false broadcast delayed medical aid from reaching Ashli Babbitt and created a dangerous situation because incoming officers had no reason to believe this wasn’t still an active-shooter scenario.

“The facts speak truth. Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd,” the lawsuit said. “Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, ‘You just murdered her.’ … Lt. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashli’s homicide.”

After Judicial Watch filed suit in San Diego, where Ashli Babbitt had lived, the DOJ sought and won a judge’s approval to transfer the case to the District of Columbia federal district court. Judicial Watch is attempting to get the case moved back to San Diego. The decision to move the case to D.C. was issued by a judge before Judicial Watch even had a chance to file opposition. A trial in the Babbitt case is set for July 2026.

President Trump will also likely learn about suspicious individuals in the crowd where Babbitt was shot who have still not been identified 50 months after the shooting. Two of the most prominent have been dubbed “Frick and Frack,” who were escorted out of the Capitol and secretly met with Capitol Police near the edge of Capitol property.

President Trump said his decision to issue pardons to more than 1,500 former Jan. 6 defendants was in large part due to the unfair treatment they received from the DOJ and federal courts.

“They were treated so unfairly, so horribly,” Trump said. “Some of them didn’t even go into the building, and the judges, the system, the hatred, the vitriol, the prosecutors — the way they wanted to just destroy these people.”

Trump described how many defendants went into court in hopes of defending themselves, only to emerge “devastated the way they were treated. Devastated, given years in prison.

“I took care of them,” the president said. “I said that I was going to, and I did.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Adam Kinzinger reveals what happens when TDS takes over your LIFE



When a case of Trump derangement syndrome goes untreated, it has the ability to control your actions, control your words, and ultimately to take over your life.

And in a selfie video shot from his car, former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) documented the progress of his ailment and posted it to social media for the world to see.

“So I just saw that Trump is like threatening the January 6 committee again. Listen, this dude knows, he knows that this is, like, the thing that embarrasses him. He won’t admit it embarrasses him, because he’s trying to, like, pretend like he didn’t do anything,” Kinzinger said.


“He’s obsessed. He’s more obsessed with, like, me and Cheney than his freaking golf score,” he continued, adding, “Hey, Trump, bring it on, dude. You weak, whiny, tiny man, who, by the way, I saw a picture of you this weekend; you’re hiking up your pants now to really just below your man boobs, and you’re sweating so much, like, looking pretty, pretty bad there.”

Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” is shocked.

“That is incredible,” Gray tells Keith and Jeffy, noting that while Kinzinger called Trump a “tiny man,” Kinzinger himself is 5’7”, while Trump is 6’3”.

“Maybe you avoid that phraseology if you’re 5 '7”,” Keith comments, adding, “It’s like call the Secret Service, this guy's not stable.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.