More on Ashli Babbitt

“We all saw the hand, we saw the gun You know, if that were on the other side, the person that did the shooting would be strung up and hung. OK? Now they don’t want to give the name. … It’s a terrible thing, right? Shot. Boom. And it’s a terrible thing.” – Donald Trump

It was a black hand that we all saw holding the gun defending the Congress. So here is the “conservative” hero and Dear Leader doing his best to make the insurrection on January 6th something about race. His racist smokescreen obviously works on some people eager to be conned.

42 thoughts on “More on Ashli Babbitt

    1. For the second time in a week (see post, “If Horst Wessel Were a Woman.”)

      Trump=Hitler is the mindless meme that won’t die.


      1. Trump does not equal Hitler.

        Hitler was smart, hardworking and successful. Not a loser. It took a worldwide Antifa effort to put him down. America dodged a bullet by having a lazy, incompetent TV clown become the leader of the kind of Americans who are susceptible to fascism.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Nice try? But that is a swing and a miss. Kind of dumb.

      The parallel noted by many observers does not say that Babbitt is a Nazi. It says that Trump is using her pointless death in the same way that Hitler exploited the death of one of his followers – to motivate the fascist movement.

      She was not “murdered.” And her being an Air Force veteran makes it even more shameful that she took part in the insurrection. You know, swearing to uphold the Constitution is part of their mission. Not tearing it down

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Your tone deafness is amazing.

        What do you think it means when those who have put their lives on the line to defend the country lose faith in the government’s intent to act within the Rule of Law?

        People were there not to break the law but to protest that the government, in their opinion, had not acted within the law.

        While it may not affect the outcome, it is fact that the election, in many states, was conducted illegally.


          1. Sure. Babbitt did have handcuffs and had security guards kneeling on her back and neck.

            Oh, wait, wrong person.

            Wasn’t she the woman who tried to be the first through a shattered door that was the last line of defense for Congress and the VP. Maybe some of the other men in her gang could have gone first, but hiding behind a woman seemed safer, I assume.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. Armed to the teeth with tasers, lances, clubs, knives, some guns by later admission, bear spray and zip ties cops were beaten half to death.

          That is a lot more than a “protest”. It was a violent effort to illegally overturn an election. An election that had been ruled fair and transparent by Republican officials, judges, legislators, governors, secretaries of state.

          If you admit that, then there is no legal or moral reason for the attack. None.

          If you have personal knowledge of fraud or even illegalities among those same folks, then go to court.

          Attacking and trying to kill the VP is not really considered Constitutional.

          Please look at this from the other side. Pretend it is a liberal sitcom or whatever you watched.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. If this were a BLM protest, and 2% of the protestors were armed with intent to do harm, would you be supporting a policeman who shot the closest unarmed protestor?


          2. 2% out of the bragged about 100,000 who attended is still 2000. And how would police know what arms she or anyone else had aside from the ones they were half killed with.

            If that situation were reversed, assuming Black protesters even got to the Capitol steps without massive casualties, the officer would be justified no matter who was about to break in an attack Congress. The officer was not hidden and was in plain sight to the mob. Yet, they continued the violence.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. We do not impose the death penalty for trespassing, which is all Babbitt did, regardless of what others might have done.

            Again, would you excuse shooting whatever BLM protestor was closest?


          4. First, I did answer your BLM hypothetical. Given all the same facts as shown in the videos, the shooting would have been justified for any violent protester breaching the last line of defense.

            There is trespassing and there is a violent entry, destruction of property and obvious threat to life and limb with an armed mob.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. PS: were those marchers confronted by an armed couple trespassing? Yet you say shooting would be justified in that case?

            Liked by 2 people

          6. So those breaking into the chamber were not advancing on the officers? Were they just breaking windows and doors to get a better view or to carry on a conversation?

            Making Babbitt a martyr is like the problem with making Michael Brown the BLM cause célèbre.

            The innocent man shot to death in Sears by a SWAT team because he was looking at a toy rifle and talking on the phone. And because he was Black. That would have been better in my opinion.

            But they didn’t consult with me, so I deferred. Martyrs are seldom perfect except in the eyes of those whose cause centers around him or her.

            Suppose some marchers did approach and a shot was fired killing a person in the back of the mob who was just standing with the protesters. Still justified?

            Not the case here, she was front and center, leading the mob and advancing through shattered doors.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Suppose some marchers did approach and a shot was fired killing a person in the back of the mob who was just standing with the protesters. Still justified?”

            Shooting unarmed trespassers is justified if they are threatening harm, not merely occupation, and if they are sufficient in size and/or number to be a threat.

            Babbitt was 110 pounds and was first through the door.

            Maybe the shooting was justified, but since there has been so little transparency, that needs to be aired.

            In the case of a bystander being shot, the blame would fall on those who made the shooting justified.

            Again, we don’t know enough to make that determination.


          8. 110 lbs with a rabid screaming armed mob behind her that had beaten officers to a pulp before arriving at the last defense.

            So why toss out the first investigation with actual bipartisan members and subpoena powers for all?

            My guess on that is the House leadership was commanded to make sure any investigation would be partisan so out with the commission and in with House panel.

            More fodder for the right.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. I think ANY Congressional circus before the Justice Dept has presented their evidence to Grand Juries is premature.

            The accused will not have a fair process if they are tried by leak by Congressional Committees

            I know that the Democrats would like to repeat the Russia Collusion Hoax process but that should not happen.


          10. It was not a Congressional committee. It was a commission, bipartisan.

            You complain that no investigation good enough for you has identified the officer who shot Babbitt. Then you complain that an investigation will affect the hundreds of attackers arrested so far.

            I think you are like the GOP House caucus. Better to have a partisan investigation so it can be discredited.

            That is, you might not want the truth, just the chaos.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “Babbitt was 110 pounds and was first through the door.”

            First through the door in front of an angry mob of close to 2000? Maybe she should have stayed out of the building and on the lawn where the ACTUAL peaceful protestors were.


          12. If you threaten a police officer in any way and the officer in question feels his or her or others lives are in danger, deadly force is authorized. Notice I am talking about PEOPLE, not property.

            You (or maybe it was Todd) brought up not knowing the mindset of Ms. Babbitt. But the mindset of the TRAINED police officer means nothing to you. His DUTY was to protect those in the building (not the building itself). If the officer felt lies were in danger he was duty bound to do what he felt was right at that time.

            Ms. Babbitt was NOT in custody; she was first in line of a VIOLENT mob attacking Congress and those inside the building, both Democrat and Republican. Any other thoughts on what happened are moot.

            And if it was just a rowdy group of tourists or trespassers, why didn’t the Republican’ in the building go out and greet them? They were sticking shit in front of doors and hiding just like everyone else.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. His race based double standard on when deadly police force is justified would actually be pretty comical if it were not about such a serious subject.

            He has NEVER over many years accepted that even one unarmed black man or boy was unjustifiably killed by police or vigilantes. But when the victim is white and is engaged in an assault on the Congress the black cop defending them is cast as the villain.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. “We do not impose the death penalty for trespassing”

            Leaving aside that the crimes committed by the mob of which Babbitt was a leading figure went far beyond “trespassing,” no death penalty was imposed. The officer was defending himself and those who he was charged to protect. As noted in another comment, your race based double standard on police behavior would be comical if the subject were not so serious.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “People were there not to break the law but to protest that the government, in their opinion, had not acted within the law.”

          Not to break the law? really. they sure looked like they were and plenty of officers bleeding and hospitalized might disagree.

          Don’t like what your administration is up to or Congress for that matter? Then do what the Constitution prescribes: vote, go to court, lobby and petition. Those are the remedies we, as Americans, agree to do.

          You are adamant that BLM was wrong, but you consider this assault to be OK?

          You are not even trying to see the other point of view.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I didn’t say it was OK.

            But when people no longer believe the law is working, that the fix is in and even the courts are in on it, then this kind of thing will happen. I’m not saying I agree that legal means were exhausted but clearly a lot of the people there had that opinion.


          2. “ Your side destroyed the credibility of the institutions we used to trust in your efforts to destroy Trump, leaving people ready to believe the conspiracies on the internet.”

            This is yours from another thread, but parallels what you said here.

            First, what institutions did you trust that “my side” destroyed in the last 5 years?

            Next, at what point is any administration responsible for making sure that people hear the truth from them? Charges of fake news, lying and confusing the American citizens was the marker of the last president. He even boasted to Leslie Stahl that confusing the electorate was a political strategy before the 2016 election.

            Finally, why are you excusing supporters from their belief in conspiracies when a bit of easy due diligence could lessen ignorance. Blaming NYT or a football player is not a good excuse to detach from reality. That is either laziness or self-fulfilling ignorance. Like I said, democracy is hard and people relying on spoon fed propaganda from the president as their only source are not owning up to their responsibilities.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “I didn’t say it was OK.”

            “But when people no longer believe the law is working, that the fix is in and even the courts are in on it, then this kind of thing will happen.”

            Yes, it will. Which raises an obvious question which seems to escape your stable genius – why do people believe such things? Hmm. Tough one.

            Just kidding. The answer is also obvious – because they are being fed a diet of LIES by Donald Trump and people like you who spread them. And spreading these LIES in a speech on the day the Congress is doing its duty moved these people to criminal violence. That makes the spreader of the LIES a criminal as well.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. My tone deafness?

          “What do I think it means . . .?”
          I think it means that having sworn to protect the Constitution does not make you immune to being conned by an expert. And it MOST certainly does not give anyone the right to physically attack the Congress while it is performing its Constitutional functions.

          “People were not there to break the law”
          Obviously false. Laughably false.

          “It is a fact that the election, in many states, was conducted illegally.”
          Obviously false. OPINIONS along those lines had no success in court.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “The courts never ruled on those elections.”

            Uh, yes they did.

            But even if they did not, there remains – hard as you find it to believe – that your opinion is not the same as a fact. If they did not rule, they did not rule either way.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. That is your view.

      Now try to see that from another point of view.

      “As far as we know, Ashli Babbitt didn’t write a song and had no previous history of right-wing violence. But like Wessel, she cannot be described as a peaceful protester or even an overzealous advocate for a dubious cause. She died in a violent attack against democracy, as part of the first serious effort in American history to overturn an election by force. She died based on the lies of a would-be authoritarian dictator, the first American president to resist leaving office after losing an election. Her death was a personal tragedy, no doubt. But now the cynical movement that sent her to die in the Capitol wants to exploit that tragedy by turning her into a martyr for fascism. We’ve seen that before, and we’ve seen where that can lead — to a place even darker than the Twilight Zone.”

      Which one do you subscribe to? Why?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Now try to see that from another point of view.”

        Not interested in seeing Ashli Babbitt from Salon’s point of view. Just study the language Salon uses in your own quotation. It is rhetorically overblown and exaggerated. It is irrational.

        It might be fair to call Ms. Babbitt a reckless protester, but even that assumes we know her mind at the time of her killing. Which we don’t.


        1. Don’t have to know her mind, just her actions.
          She was not shot for thinking.

          (Actually a good case could be made that she was not thinking, just acting.)

          She was the lead person in a gang assault that had just breached the last defense before Congress and the VP.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “Don’t have to know her mind, just her actions. She was not shot for thinking.”

          That’s right. Salon pretends to know her mind.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s