Skip to content

NY Times Buries Truth About Ashli Babbitt’s Death — All to Mask Identity of 3 Shadowy Figures

The New York Times has buried numerous important and relevant pieces of information in its latest high-profile story regarding the shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt. The Times’ story seems to intentionally shrouds the mysterious circumstances surrounding Babbitt’s death to protect a trio of unknown, shadowy or radical figures who were involved in the fatal incident.

Understanding the way the NY Times buried key relevant pieces of information in its report is suggestive in its own right. This is particularly true due to the surrounding suspect coverage of the entire incident, including CNN, NBC News and ABC in Australia paying one of the agitators, John Sullivan, a handsome sum for unique eyewitness footage of the event. The founder of the unsubtly titled Insurgence USA was even invited on CNN, along with a freelance documentarian named Jade Sacker, and virtually handed an open mic to tell his story.

Sullivan’s footage was one of the most tragic and compelling pieces of video captured during the entire January 6th Capitol riot: The shooting death of Ashli Babbitt.

Despite the extraordinary video, conveniently captured by an Antifa-supporting activist named John Sullivan, there have been very few attempts by major media outlets to dissect what really happened with the shooting of the Trump supporter.

The shooting incident is usually described in the most general of terms. An agitator, whom we now know is named Zachary Jordan Alam, smashed a window leading to an unsecured corridor within the Capitol building.

Zachary Alam, noticeably dressed in a furry hat, is handed a helmet by a fellow insurgent, whom we now know is a Texas winery owner named Christopher Ray Grider. Also involved is one Chad Barrett Jones of Kentucky, who is accused of breaking windows with a flagpole.

Zachary Alam’s name is completely missing in the report, despite his pivotal role in orchestrating the corridor breach.

In the video, Alam backs the crowd up and smashes the window with the black helmet he is given. Babbitt crawls through the window, unarmed, but is shot by an unidentified police officer.

The entire incident should be watched and scrutinized carefully. View the entire event via Sullivan’s own video below:

On Sunday, the New York Times reported more information about the unidentified shooter, who has not been charged for excessive force or for negligence after shooting the unarmed woman.

The lieutenant, a veteran officer, was regularly assigned to the Speaker’s Lobby, an enclosed hallway and waiting area in the inner sanctum of the Capitol where access is highly restricted. The lobby runs directly behind the House chamber and is lined with portraits of the House’s past leaders. It is bound by two sets of old wooden doors with windows, one on the Democratic side and one on the Republican side.

At about 2:15 p.m., the lieutenant heard on the radio that the Capitol had been breached, according to his account.

The Times continues to paint its picture, but one can immediately note a give-away that the entire narrative is dishonest.

At 2:30 p.m., a crowd that included Ms. Babbitt streamed through the Capitol Rotunda and Statuary Hall. At that point, they were calm, even staying within a walkway defined by velvet ropes. But as they surged toward the north doors of the House, they grew aggressive, chanting, “Break it down.”

“Hey guys, I have a knife,” one person in the crowd can be heard saying.

Who was it that said “I have a knife”? It was none other than the Antifa-supporter John Sullivan himself, according to a federal affidavit submitted with his arrest warrant. The warrant states:

“Less than two minutes later, while officers are still at the doors and as others yell to break the glass windows in them with various objects, SULLIVAN can be heard saying, “Hey guys, I have a knife. I have a knife. Let me up.”

Sullivan’s name would not be mentioned in the entire article, even as his footage is seminal to understanding what happened.

There are more suspicious things about the narrative presented in the NY Times report. One of them is that this highly veteran officer, according to reports, did not know there were other officers on the other side of the glass doors and windows.

The officer, according to his account, could not see the three uniformed officers outside and did not know they were there — he only described seeing a hallway full of oncoming people. The three officers had no visible shields or riot gear — two of them were not even wearing hats.

How could there be such a lack of communication between officers in a crisis situation who are physically within fifty feet of one another? Why didn’t the officers inside the corridor with the agitators and the Trump supporters make it known there was an imminent threat to this unnamed officer, instead of standing back and standing by? Why did these officers allow Alam to change his gear right behind them, without even acknowledging his presence, and then let him get away scot-free?

The image of the unnamed capitol officer holding aloft .40-caliber Glock handgun and pointing it at Babbitt, while Sullivan shouts repeatedly that “there is a gun,” is a harrowing one.

This is how the New York Times recounts the event:

“There’s a gun!” “He’s got a gun!” people shouted.

No, this is what Sullivan predominately, and likely first shouted. The radical activist had perched himself right beside the window where the gun would fire its fatal shots.

This from a Rolling Stone interview that was done with Sullivan right after the shooting:

At that moment, everybody starts rushing the doors, just bashing the windows. And I remember just seeing, like, five or six guns just poke out of these doorways. I really took notice of the one to the left of me in the video. And I just remember screaming, “Gun, there’s a gun! There’s a gun! Guys, there’s a gun!” But what you can’t really understand is that nobody can hear me, right? It’s like if you’re in a concert where everybody’s yelling and screaming and singing along. It’s so loud you can’t hear the person next to you. That’s how it was in there. So I’m saying, “There’s a gun, there’s a gun, there’s a gun!” And all these people are still banging on the window. They just keep doing it.

Sullivan’s explanation, therefore, is that he was the one shouting about a “gun,” but it was purportedly so loud that the Trump supporters just wouldn’t heed his warning.

This is the New York Times’ narrative continued:

In the thick of the action, a man wielding the helmet broke out the windowpane in front of Ms. Babbitt. A few seconds later, someone tried to boost her through. She wore a Trump flag around her neck like a cape, and a backpack over it.

As Ms. Babbitt was hoisted up, the lieutenant fired a single shot. She plummeted backward, striking the hard floor. There was no evidence that she had been armed.

The man “wielding the helmet,” whom we know is named Zachary Jordan Alam, has been charged by the Department of Justice with serious crimes, including:

Assault on a Federal Officer with a Dangerous or Deadly Weapon; Destruction of Government Property over $1,000; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Unlawful Entry on Restricted Building or Grounds; Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct.

Yet, the New York Times elides this criminal conduct and fails to raise any questions about Alam’s suspicious behavior, including evidence that he engaged in a “coordinated action.” Again, Alam was handed a helmet; he backed the crowd up to smash the window; he changed his appearance in what should have been a secured area behind police officers; and he got away without being apprehended. This is all captured on video and is a matter of verifiable fact.

Here is another suggestive bit about Alam: He is, by his own words, no fan of police officers.

“Video footage showed Alam — with his mask pulled down — pushing past security personnel and screaming “F— the blue!” before reaching the doors of the Speaker’s Lobby, which leads to the House Chamber,” an affidavit said.

The entire incident was broken down by a Japanese analyst who had witnessed similar coordinated actions in her own country. In an interview with the Epoch Times, Masako Ganaha performs a compelling “analysis of the Ashli Babbitt shooting.”

If you haven’t watched the analysis yet, it will lead you to start asking the right questions about the death of Ashli Babbitt. This is far beyond what the major press is doing with this shooting incident.

As far as the unidentified police officer is concerned, he is reportedly in hiding due to credible threats made against his life.

“More than six weeks after Babbitt succumbed to a single gunshot wound to the upper chest, authorities are keeping secret the identity of the officer who fired the fatal round,” Real Clear Investigations’ Paul Sperry noted. “They won’t release his name, and the major news media aren’t clamoring for it, in stark contrast to other high-profile police shootings of unarmed civilians.”

“The secrecy has fueled Internet reports misidentifying the shooter as a Capitol Police special agent previously commended by President Trump for bravery,” Sperry reported. “The false rumors have triggered threats against the officer.”

Paul Sperry provides further reported details about the officer in question.

“The officer who opened fire on Babbitt holds the rank of lieutenant and is a longtime veteran of the force who worked protective detail in the Speaker’s Lobby, a highly restricted area behind the House chamber, sources say. An African-American, he was put on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation led by the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia, which shares jurisdiction with the Capitol Police. The Justice Department is also involved in the inquiry.”

Based on Wall Street Journal reporting, the case may soon be ruled “justifiable homicide,” he notes. But the case “remains under active investigation,” D.C. Police spokeswoman Alaina Gertz told Real Clear Investigations.

Regardless of Babbitt being unarmed, the unnamed officer warned her not to go into the secured area, a claim backed up by witnesses, according to the officer’s lawyer Mark Schamel.

“It’s a false narrative that he issued no verbal commands or warnings,” Schamel said. “He was screaming, ‘Stay back! Stay back! Don’t come in here!’”

The decision to shoot Ashli Babbitt has been chalked up as a “split second” decision; but one can see from the video that the woman was warned and the man held aloft his gun for at least fifteen seconds before shooting. This is not second-guessing the officer’s decision, but merely to point out that there is a discrepancy in the characterization of the shooting. It is also undeniable that Babbitt should not have proceeded to go into the area. However, this does not resolve questions about how the incident developed or concluded.

The New York Times and other media outlets have branded Babbitt as a “Q Anon” supporter, as if that is to dispel any public curiosity or even sympathy about the woman’s death.

“Ashli wasn’t a thug. She wasn’t a rioter. Ashli was a peaceful person,” said her cousin Justine Babbitt. “She did 14 years in the military. She was not there to destroy the Capitol building. She was there to be heard and be part of a movement. Ashli was a die-hard patriot. Not a Democrat, not a Republican. She was for the people. Ashli carried around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in her pocketbook.”

Ashli Babbit was recently put to rest in a ceremony besides the Pacific Ocean.

Image credit: Gateway Pundit

Americans wish they could say the same about many questions regarding the circumstances surrounding her mysterious death.

Editor’s note: This article was updated with more information after publication. This article contains editorial commentary.

Follow Kyle Becker on TwitterTelegramInstagramFacebookGab or Parler.


Capitol Police Chief Forced to Resign Drops Damning Letter to Pelosi Revealing What Really Happened Ahead of Capitol Riots

"*" indicates required fields

Who would you vote for? Trump or DeSantis?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.