By Steven Richards

Published: June 19, 2024 2:52pm

Updated: June 19, 2024 3:50pm

A Cleveland digital newspaper was forced to retract a guest column on Tuesday after it was published with significant factual errors about FBI whistleblowers who made protected disclosures to Congress, including claims they engaged in unlawful conduct.

The error-riddled paragraphs were tucked away at the end of an opinion piece critical of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, whose Weaponization Committee received testimony from the whistleblowers about their experiences in the bureau. Although the original article was deleted, an archived version can be found here.

The article was removed from the newspaper’s website, cleveland.com, after it was published by The Plain Dealer on June 9. The author, New York-based political consultant and attorney Neil Baron had written about whistleblowers Marcus Allen and Garret O’Boyle, both of whom brought concerns to Congress about FBI practices and its handling of sensitive political issues, like the January 6 riots.

“Smearing #whistleblowers with lies just because you don’t like the truths they tell is wrong,” the group representing the two whistleblowers posted to X. “No matter who does it. It needs to stop.” Jason Foster, the founder of the group, Empower Oversight, said in a post to X that the he contacted the editor and informed him of the “libels” published in his paper.

In its retraction Tuesday, the news website apologized to the whistleblowers and FBI supervisor George Hill, who was also mentioned in the piece, for “errors.”

https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/cleveland-newspaper-forced-retract-opinion-piece-spread-false-claims

The headline above is not at all hyperbolic. In its efforts to “save democracy,” the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking to deny the family members of Ashli Babbitt their constitutional rights.

In the way of background, on Jan. 5, 2024, Judicial Watch filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the United States of America on behalf of the estate of Ashli Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt, her husband.

A 14-year Air Force veteran, the unarmed Ashli was shot and killed on Jan. 6, 2021, by Lt. Michael Byrd inside the U.S. Capitol. Byrd, who was not even disciplined for this reckless shooting, has since been promoted to captain.

As I report in my new book, “Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6,” Ashli had implored the Capitol Police to control the chaos in the narrow corridor where she was trapped.

When the three officers guarding the door inexplicably walked away, Ashli tried to escape the madness through a broken window. Byrd shot her on sight without warning.

To bring suit, Judicial Watch chose the most natural venue, the United States District Court of the Southern District of California. Aaron Babbitt and Ashli’s other family members live in San Diego County as did Ashli before she was killed.

According to a federal law, “A civil action on a tort claim against the United States may be prosecuted in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides.” Alternatively, the claim may be filed in the district in which the incident occurred.

As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton points out, the “first reaction” of the Department of Justice was to request that the suit be moved out of the court where it was filed and to Washington, D.C.

“The request for a change in venue is clearly influenced by Defendant’s strongest motivation for changing venue,” says Fitton, “which is to select the forum where it feels it would receive a favorable process and outcome based on adversity against January 6 participants.”

The numbers back Fitton’s argument. In a district in which Trump pulled only 5% of the vote, Trump-affiliated plaintiffs would have no chance of securing an impartial jury and little chance of getting an impartial judge.

This argument is not theoretical. After hundreds of trials, no January 6 defendant has been acquitted by a D.C. jury, and only two have been acquitted by a D.C. judge in a bench trial.

In San Diego County, President Donald Trump received just 37% of the vote in 2020, but there plaintiffs seen as sympathetic to Trump would have at least a chance of securing an impartial jury.

The right to an impartial jury is fundamental. According to the Sixth Amendment, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

The Seventh Amendment addresses civil cases. Here, too, the parties involved are guaranteed a right to a trial by jury. From the nation’s beginning, the Seventh Amendment has been interpreted to extend the right to an “impartial jury” to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

No matter how one interprets the law, the Biden DOJ made the conscious decision to flout the Constitution and deny the Babbitt family their right to an impartial jury.

https://www.wndnewscenter.org/what-constitution-doj-seeks-to-deny-ashli-babbitt-family-impartial-jury/