This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
China reportedly wanted to manufacture and send to the U.S. false driver's licenses during 2020 in order to facilitate "tens of thousands of fraudulent mail-in votes" for Joe Biden in that dramatic faceoff with the then-sitting president, Donald Trump, according to a new report that cites a human source's statements to the FBI.
But the FBI ordered a report on that situation destroyed, the report said.
That election, of course, was the one where there have been documented enough "undue influences" to have changed the outcome, which ended up with Biden in the Oval office. One was Mark Zuckerberg's decision to hand out, through foundations, hundreds of millions of dollars to mostly leftist local elections officials who often used the influx of cash to recruit voters in Democrat districts.
The other, which was cited in a polling as probably having cost Trump the election, was the FBI's decision to interfere in the election results by telling media and other organizations to suppress what turned out to be accurate, and damaging, information about the Biden business enterprises found in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden.
The new details were outlined in a report at Just the News, which said it reviewed a raw intelligence reported containing the details.
That said a confidential human source told the FBI in 2020 China's communist government was shipping faked driver's licenses to the U.S. to be used to create those fraudulent ballots.
Just the News reported that report was one of two sent by FBI Director Kash Patel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Originally it went to U.S. intel agencies in August of that election year as "an uncorroborated advisory."
Then the FBI suddenly recalled the report because, officials stated, they wanted to "re-interview" the source. The FBI wanted those original reports erased or destroyed.
The FBI, at the time, said, "This report was recalled in order to re-interview the source. Recipients should destroy all copies of the original report and remove the original report from all computer holdings."
That order, Just the News reported, kept the FBI or any other agency "from fully investigating allegations that Beijing was trying to meddle in the U.S. election to Biden's benefit."
But other agencies' reports affirmed parts of the alleged scheme, revealing U.S. Customs Border and Protection had captured 19,888 of the fake driver's licenses, sourced in Hong Kong and China.
They reportedly were en route to battleground states in the Midwest, where a few thousand fraudulent ballots easily could change the outcome of an election, the report said.
The FBI report had described, "Chinese Government Production and Export of Fraudulent US Driver's Licenses to Chinese Sympathizers in the United States, in Order to Create Tens of Thousands of Fraudulent Mail-in Votes for US Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, in late August 2020."
The FBI had noted that it was information, "raw intelligence," but was not a fully reviewed intel report.
The report delivered to Grassley explained, "In late August 2020, the Chinese government had produced a large amount of fraudulent United States driver's licenses that were secretly exported to the United States. The fraudulent driver's licenses would allow tens of thousands of Chinese students and immigrants sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party to vote for U.S. presidential candidate USPER Joe Biden despite not being eligible to vote in the United States."
Details used on the fake licenses apparently came from TikTok data, the report said.
Grassley said, "The document alleges serious national security concerns that need to be fully investigated by the FBI." His officer said the senator "is requesting additional documentation from the FBI to verify the production, and is urging the FBI to do its due diligence to investigate why the document was recalled, who recalled it and inform the American people of its findings."
Patel told Just the News he was investigating.
WND had reported only hours earlier on Patel's revelations about Chinese plans to create fake mail-in ballots, information that Patel said was never revealed to the public.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Colorado city that bashed a local church for running a temporary homeless shelter on its own vast property has backed down, allowing the ministry to restore services to the needy.
And it has paid up, agreeing to contribute $225,000 to lawyers' fees for the fight it started.
According to officials at First Liberty Institute, The Rock Church has reached a settlement with the town of Castle Rock, following a recent court ruling that already had enjoined the city from enforcing its will on the church.
The church can now continue to run an onsite temporary shelter ministry, use its own building for emergency shelter, including partnering with the Red Cross, and even operate a coffee shop at cost or for voluntary donations.
The two sides released a joint statement:
On May 13, 2024, the Church of the Rock ("the Rock") filed a federal lawsuit against the Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Rock sought and received a court order enjoining the Town from enforcing its land-use laws to prohibit the Rock's operation of its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry, through which the Rock provides shelter to those in need in trailers on its property, during the pendency of the case.
Since the Court issued its injunction order, the Rock and the Town have sought to resolve this dispute without further litigation. As part of those efforts, on December 2, 2024, the Town issued a revised Letter of Determination that explicitly permits the Rock to operate its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry in the two trailers currently located on the Rock's property and clarifies that the applicable Planned Development zoning regulations do not prevent the Rock from providing additional shelter during public emergencies through its partnership with the Red Cross.
The Town and the Rock now wish to inform the public that they have reached an agreement intended to end the current litigation and settle issues regarding the future use of the Rock's property to provide temporary housing to those in need. As part of this agreement, a new Letter of Determination will permit the Rock to operate its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry located in its existing parking lot. The Town has the option to install additional fencing or landscaping to partially screen the location of the units from the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
The Town acknowledges the Rock's invaluable services to the Castle Rock community through its longstanding efforts to provide support for those members of our community most in need. The Rock acknowledges its responsibilities as a good neighbor and looks forward to working in partnership with the Town while providing those services. The Town and the Rock believe that this agreement is in the best interest of all parties and successfully balances the Rock's religious free-exercise rights with the Town's public interest in enforcing land use regulations and protecting the general welfare, public health, and safety. The Town and the Rock are no longer in an adversarial posture in regard to the litigation and look forward to productive cooperation and potential partnerships on issues in the future.
"This is a welcome resolution that goes far to encourage churches who care for those in need and a good example of the type of cooperation between church and state that every community should welcome," said Jeremy Dys, a lawyer for First Liberty.
"We are pleased that we can continue our church's mission to transform society by loving others as Christ loved us," added Pastor Mike Polhemus. "We love Castle Rock and are committed to working with the Town of Castle Rock to provide assistance to those in need, thus helping to reduce homelessness in our community."
WND previously had reported on the judge's preliminary injunction that prevented Castle Rock's interference in the church program.
It uses an RV and a trailer camper unit on its own property to help shelter those in need.
The judge found the city had created a "substantial burden" on religion because it "prevents participation in a conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief."
The church's legal action charged that city officials were violating the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act with their campaign.
It was U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico who had concluded the town did violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a law passed by Congress in 2000, which grants religious institutions protections from zoning laws that prohibit free exercise of religion.
The judge said in his order, "The church stresses that by preventing it from allowing the homeless to live on its property, the town is precluding the church from exercising its religious beliefs regardless of whether it might be possible to provide for the needy in some other way. There is no reason to second-guess the church at this point, regardless of how idiosyncratic or mistaken the town may find its beliefs to be."
He continued, "The town does not explicitly argue that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the (Planning Division) regulations as interpreted by the board of adjustment, and the church contends that the town could have no such interest because the church takes a number of precautions to ensure that its temporary shelter is safe. These include having a third party conduct background checks and requiring any RV tenants to sign contracts indicating that they will abide by certain rules."
Further, he said the town failed to identify any safety issues from the church's actions.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new state law recently signed by Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte will eliminate "onerous regulations" for homeschooling families.
"For Montana families who homeschool, HB 778 is more than just a policy update, it's a shift toward recognizing and respecting the unique nature of home education," explained Traci Taylor of Mix 97.1. "By cutting unnecessary red tape and clearly separating homeschools from nonpublic schools, the law supports educational freedom while still ensuring students get a solid education."
A report at LifeSiteNews explains the plan repeals the demand that homeschool parents keep immunization records for their children and submit them to officials.
It also explains that family homes are not required to meet the same health and safety codes as school buildings. Further, it makes homeschoolers and private schools separate categories.
The report noted about 3.1 million students were homeschooled in the United States as of 2022. On average, the National Home Education Research Institute pointed out, they scored on average "15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests."
While home schoolers sometimes face little regulation, a common tactic among leftists is to create rules specifically for them, especially among those radicals who hold the mindset that children actually belong to the state.
Radical sexual, diversity and racial ideologies long have been a major concern for parents regarding the content of public school classrooms and libraries.
A recent development has been for extremists to impose transgender ideologies on schools, insisting that boys be allowed to change clothes and shower with girls.
Those factors have been pushing the number of homeschoolers up each year.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A surprisingly positive inflation report for May is fueling "hope" that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates later this year, a move that President Donald Trump openly has wanted.
Inflation was put by federal estimates at 2.4%, up fractionally from the 2.3% from April, but still below expectations.
"President Trump has made no secret of the fact that he would like the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates," Nicholas Hyett, investment manager at Wealth Club, told the Daily Mail.
"On the face of it these numbers should ease some of the inflationary worries… the challenge is that while inflation isn't rising as fast as expected, it isn't falling either," Hyett explained.
Inflation was in the low single digits when Joe Biden took office four years ago, but exploded to as high as 9% percent under his failed economic policies.
Inflation was one of the issues on which Trump campaigned for his second term.
The report triggered a surge in stock market prices.
"Longer term there's still concerns about Trump's tariffs being inflationary but this report was better than expected and it fuels hope that the Federal Reserve will be able to step in with rate cuts later on this year," Robert Pavlik, of Dakota Wealth, told the Mail.
Analysts had been expecting a number closer to 3%.
Numbers from the Department of Labor Statistics surprised some economists who thought Trump's tariff battles, intended to bring American consumers and American businesses both a more fair world trade market presence, would have a more inflationary impact.
Major retailers, like Walmart, have said they are raising prices to cover the tariff costs.
"However, the latest report shows that other major consumer prices are down, including smartphones which fell 1.6 percent and airline fares down 2.7 percent from the month before," the report said. "Traders now believe there is a 75 percent chance the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates by September, compared to 60 percent yesterday, Bloomberg reported."
The White House took a victory lap, "Since President Trump took office, inflation has come in below economists' expectations every single month."
Trump has said it will be the "new Golden Age with lower costs, higher pay, and economic opportunity for all."
The White House said, "Under President Trump, core inflation has tracked at just 2.0% on an annual basis – levels not seen since the first Trump administration, when prices were low and stable. … In May, real wages for production and nonsupervisory workers saw the highest monthly increase in nearly a year — rising each month since President Trump took office and up nearly 2% over last year. The average private sector worker is on track to see their real earnings increase by around $1,200, adjusted for inflation."
Responses from the networks:
CNN's Matt Egan: "We got ANOTHER month of positive inflation news. Despite these historic tariffs, the latest numbers do show that inflation remained relatively tame in May … This was better than expected … We did see a drop in energy prices. In particular, gas prices were low."
CNBC's Mike Santoli: "There's no way to look at these numbers and say they're not welcome news."
Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo: "That is much better than expected."
The consumer price index is a broad measure of the prices of everyday goods.
"The inflation data this year has been terrific — a welcomed change from the prior four disastrous years," EJ Antoni, chief economist for the Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. "This bodes very well for the overall economy and indicates that we're headed to the 2.0% inflation target of the Federal Reserve. The Trump administration deserves tremendous credit here because their efforts to reduce government spending while increasing future energy production have reduced input prices throughout the economy, putting downward pressure on consumer prices. What a difference a president can make!"
The CPI report comes after the U.S. economy added 139,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in May, slightly above economists' expectations — while the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.2%, the BLS reported on June 6.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is demanding an explanation for why there was a two-hour delay for Los Angeles police to respond when ICE officers came under attack.
The federal agents were serving warrants and making arrests as part of a cartel crime investigation when the leftists in Los Angeles allowed rioters to attack and assault them.
Police took hours to respond, and the riots, vandalism, looting, and attacks have been going on ever since.
A report at Fox confirmed Issa now is calling for an investigation into reports the officers "did not promptly respond" with the help needed.
He's on the House Judiciary Committee and announced he wants a "full and complete Congressional investigation" into the response time of the LAPD assisting the ICE officers who.
The Department of Homeland Security confirmed, on Saturday, what happened Friday night when the riots started, "Last night, over 1,000 rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer funded property."
"It took the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) two hours to respond."
The city's police chief later claimed that "didn't happen."
But he did admit that traffic trouble delayed officers for 40 minutes.
Trica McLaughlin, an assistant DHS secretary, followed up by confirming that the delay was extensive.
"The fact remains that it took the Los Angeles Police Department two hours to respond," McLaughlin said. "During that time, over 1,000 rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer funded property. DHS is grateful that now the LAPD is stepping up to help restore law and order."
Issa charged, "We need to know if the political leadership of the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, or anyone else instructed the LAPD to stand down and not respond to the emergency requests of our ICE agents who were under attack by rioters determined to block them, burn them, or even kill them as they bravely carried out their sworn duties."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has announced a travel ban on people coming from a dozen nations, since the United States simply does not have the ability to properly vet them.
There are new limits on travel from another seven nations because of their unacceptable rates of visa overstays.
Nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are barred, while there are limits on those coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
"As president, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety," Trump said.
"Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts. Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations. I have considered and largely accepted those recommendations and impose the limitations set forth below on the entry into the United States by the classes of foreign nationals identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation."
Trump had taken a similar action during his first term, prompting leftists to claim it was a "Muslim ban," which it wasn't. The Supreme Court at that time affirmed his strategy.
A commentary at RedState noted that chorus already was in full voice again.
"The move came just days after an Islamic terrorist seeking to 'free Palestine' set several elderly Jewish women on fire in Colorado with Molotov cocktails. Mohamad Soliman had overstayed a tourist visa during the Biden years but was given work authorization in 2023, which ran out weeks before his attack."
It continued, "As you'd expect, the meltdown on the left began immediately. Accusations of racism and xenophobia are already flowing like milk and honey. Ah, yes, America's founders were big on the ideal of importing people from violent Islamic countries on visas. I'm not sure how this hurts our 'global leadership' either. Is the argument that Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya won't respect us anymore? Because I've got some news for Democrats if that's the case."
The commentary pointed out, "It objectively makes America safer not to offer visas to countries that breed terrorists. That's just common sense. To be clear, there's nothing racist about this ban. For one, Muslim is not a race, and not all the countries listed are predominantly Muslim. Two, the countries on the list are home to several different races. Three, I don't think I'm going to take my cues on what is un-American from a Democrat congresswoman who is more concerned about nations on the other side of the globe than her own."
The proclamation noted several of the nations regularly decline to accept the return of their own citizens, indicating a "blatant disregard for United States immigration laws."
Trump noted his restrictions during his first term "successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld."
He targeted aliens who "intend to harm Americans or our national interests" and said the U.S. "must identify such aliens before their admission or entry into the United States."
The announcement cited influence of the "Specially Designated Global Terrorist group," the Taliban, in Afghanistan and the fact the nation "does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. For Burma, it historically refused to cooperate with the U.S. to take back "removable nationals."
Like problems were cited for the rest of the nations, including Somalia.
"Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects. A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia's territory. The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven. Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations. Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States. The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists' freedom of movement. Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the two major administration agenda points for Joe Biden's regime, during the four years he was in the White House, was abortion. The other was transgenderism.
On abortion, he promoted it everywhere he could, in the United States and around the world.
He tried to impose abortion requirements on unwilling targets of his political agenda, and one of those was the community of emergency room physicians.
Biden's administration simply reinterpreted a federal law, which actually provides protections for the "unborn child," to insist that emergency room physicians had to perform abortions, essentially on demand by a patient.
Now President Donald Trump has reversed that reinterpretation.
His administration announced it is revoking a "guidance" to hospitals that ordered them to do "emergency abortions" for women, on the condition that was "necessary" to stabilize their medical condition.
It was in 2022, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the faulty Roe v. Wade precedent that incorrectly created a constitutional "right" to abortion that the Biden administration retaliated.
Its guidance said to preserve abortion access for cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies and needed an immediate abortion, ER doctors must commit abortion.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, of SBA Pro-Life America, said the move was one of the ways Biden tried to push abortion into states where there are legal and constitutional limits.
"Democrats have created confusion on this fact to justify their extremely unpopular agenda for all-trimester abortion. In situations where every minute counts, their lies lead to delayed care and put women in needless, unacceptable danger," she said.
Lawyers with the ADF also confirmed they had filed a voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit against the Biden actions.
The case, Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, argued that the Biden orders under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act overstepped Biden's statutory authority and violated members' conscience rights.
"Doctors—especially in emergency rooms—are tasked with preserving life. The Trump administration has rolled back a harmful Biden-era mandate that compelled doctors to end unborn lives, in violation of their deeply held beliefs," said ADF lawyer Matt Bowman.
"Emergency room physicians can and do treat life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies, and every state allows doctors to do whatever is necessary to preserve the life of a mother. Now, doctors will be able to perform their life-giving duties without fear of government officials forcing them to end life and violate their beliefs."
It was Biden's HHS secretary, Xavier Becerra, who claimed he could override state laws regarding abortion to demand ER doctors perform the procedures.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A scandal that has sullied, perhaps forever, the reputations of the Pulitzer prizes, the New York Times and the Washington Post, is going to be further explored, after a ruling from the Florida Appellate Court that rejected the defendants' attempt to have the case brought by President Donald Trump dismissed.
The scenario that triggered the legal defamation case is that the Pultizer board awarded a prize for reporting to the Times and Post on their work "exposing" the Russian collusion conspiracy about Trump's campaign in 2016.
The problem is that the conspiracy theory was based on fabrications, and the reporting portrayed those ideologies as fact. And then when the truth was revealed, Pulitzer officials didn't recall, and the publications didn't reject, their prizes.
It was Trump himself who went to social media to note the decision to allow the case, filed in Okeechobee County, Florida, to continue. He charges that the Pulitzer decision to refuse to rescind the awards which essentially honored "fake news" constituted defamation.
"A large swath of Americans had a tremendous misunderstanding of the truth at the time the Times' and the Post's propagation of the Russia Collusion Hoax dominated the media," according to the complaint. "Remarkably, they were rewarded for lying to the American public."
President Trump made the announcement on TRUTH Social.
Pulitzer officials said they were "evaluating" their next step. It's one of a multitude of cases brought by Trump against media and other organizations, some of which already have been settled with huge payments to him.
It was ex-FBI chief Robert Mueller who investigated, for years, those claims. And found no evidence to support the allegations.
Pulitzer officials claimed the publications' reports were "deeply sourced" and "relentlessly reported," even though the claims were based on lies and fabrications.
Trump, on social media, responded to the attacks by the publications and the new court decision.
"BREAKING! In a major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory 'Award' of their once highly respected 'Prize,' to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendants' corrupt attempt to halt the case. They won a Pulitzer Prize for totally incorrect reporting about the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax. Now they admit it was a SCAM, never happened, and their reporting was totally wrong, in fact, the exact opposite of the TRUTH. They'll have to give back their 'Award.' They were awarded for false reporting, and we can't let that happen in the United States of America. We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
As explained by the Gateway Pundit, Trump's case "challenges the legitimacy of the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes awarded to fake news, The New York Times and The Washington Post, for their coverage of the debunked Trump-Russia collusion hoax."
It was documentation from the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed the reports by the publications were "not only dishonest but also as an early attempt to fuel the baseless Russiagate narrative," the report said.
Eventually, evidence showed failed Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton's' campaign "orchestrated the Trump-Russia collusion hoax."
Despite the evidence the stories were fraudulent, the Pulitzer officials refused to retract the honors.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A church in Toms River, New Jersey, with plenty of space as it owns 10 acres of land, proposed building a 17-bed overnight shelter as a way to reach out to the needy and help the community.
So officials in the town retaliated with their own plan to confiscate the land and turn it into pickleball courts.
"It is clear that this is being done in retaliation for the church making an application for a homeless shelter," Harvey York, the church's lawyer, told Fox News.
Citing the constitutional standards regarding protections for freedom religion as well as the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, he said, "I don't know that you'll find a lawyer who will say, 'Oh, yeah, they have every right to do this; they're going to win.'"
It is the Christ Episcopal Church that has found itself in the middle of the city's bull's-eye.
And York said while some residents are happy with the idea, "the majority" is shocked and dismayed.
The church had suggested an outreach to the area's homeless with an overnight shelter.
"It didn't take long for neighbors to become concerned," York explained and the result was an ordinance pending before the town council to condemn and take the land, which now already holds the parish house, auditorium, school, sanctuary and deacon's residence.
"Any governmental agency has the right to condemn property for governmental purposes. That's clear. However, the township has never thought of this as a recreational site," York said. "For them to say they need recreational land flies in the face of the facts and their master plan."
He said city officials need to "mind their own business and stay out of the religious affairs of the community."
The report said the church originally proposed its plan in 2023, an agenda that met all state and local regulations.
Litigation is expected, and Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University, said the case could put before the U.S. Supreme Court the "infamous" Kelo v. City of New London case in which the justices decided the government could confiscate land from one party, under its eminent domain, and give it to another party.
In the Kelo case, city officials in New London confiscated property from a private resident to give it to Pfizer for a major development.
Turley noted the ultimate failure of that scheme.
"After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began," he explained.
He said the new case does include the possibility of "public purpose" for the land, but still is clouded with the questions over "a pretextual rationale" for the city's decisions.
"There are ample reasons to be concerned about the actions in this case if they are a form of retaliation for the church's shelter plan," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit against the government over the shooting by a Capitol police officer of an unarmed Ashli Babbitt, who was at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest what many saw as an unfair election result, apparently has been settled.
Reports say the settlement to the family is for just about $5 million, with about one-third going to lawyers who advocated for her.
A RedState report said the government apparently has agreed to those details to resolve the fight.
"Two people briefed on the matter said the Justice Department has agreed in principle to pay just under $5 million to Babbitt's family, with about one-third to go to their attorneys, who include the conservative group Judicial Watch and Alexandria, Virginia, lawyer Richard Driscoll. The two people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a pending court matter," the report said.
The case had been seeking $30 million.
The legal case alleged the police officer involved, Michael Byrd, used excessive force and unjustly caused the woman's death.
The case was brought on behalf of Ashli Babbitt's husband, Aaron.
"Lt. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female. Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty, and in plain view of Lt. Byrd and other officers in the lobby. Ashli posed no threat to the safety of anyone. Not one member of Congress was in the lobby, which was guarded by multiple armed police officers," RedState commented.
WND reported earlier when it was documented that a settlement was being pursued.
At that time, Department of Justice Lawyer Joseph Gonzalez and Robert Sticht, representing Babbitt's husband, Aaron, confirmed the settlement was in process.
Byrd shot and killed Babbitt as she was part of a group of protesters who had entered the Capitol and ended up near the House chamber.
The filing described that Byrd "negligently discharged his firearm and failed to warn Babbitt or de-escalate the situation. The suit also alleged negligence on the part of other officers near the Speaker's Lobby at the time of the shooting as well as the U.S. Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board in failing to properly train Byrd in tactical decision-making."
Babbitt was an Air Force veteran but was killed during the protests that day.