Michael Byrd, Ashli Babbitt, and the Lewis List: A Case of Institutional Hypocrisy
In the dark corridors of Washington, there exists a confidential mechanism known as the "Lewis list," maintained by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. On paper, this list serves as an internal quality control—a catalog of law enforcement officers whose credibility has been compromised to such an extent that their testimony could threaten the integrity of prosecutions. The Lewis list was born out of the 1985 Lewis v. United States case, which stressed the need to ensure that officers with questionable integrity were not relied upon in criminal trials. Over the past decade, the list has reportedly influenced at least 20 cases, preventing tainted testimony from undermining justice. However, its mere existence unveils a troubling paradox: a justice system that must silently track its own compromised agents to protect itself from their tainted records.
Recent credible reports from the U.S. Attorney’s Office indicate that Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the U.S. Capitol Police, the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during the events of January 6th, may be on the Lewis list. If true, this suggests that Byrd’s disciplinary record is far from trivial; it raises alarms significant enough for federal prosecutors to deem him too unreliable to testify in court. This revelation casts an alarming shadow over Byrd's use of lethal force against an unarmed civilian. If Byrd’s record is so concerning that his testimony is inadmissible, why has he not faced public accountability for his actions?
Consider Byrd's history. He should arguably never have been on duty in the Capitol on January 6th. Reports suggest that Byrd could not pass a federal firearms background check, disqualifying him from carrying a firearm in the first place. His inclusion on the Lewis list implies that he should not have been allowed to serve in an armed capacity, let alone be put in a position of authority. His disciplinary history is laden with red flags: Byrd once left a loaded firearm unattended in a Capitol bathroom—an egregious lapse that could have led to disaster. He was also involved in an incident where he discharged his weapon at a fleeing van, prompting an internal investigation into the appropriateness of his actions. Moreover, Byrd allegedly lied during the subsequent inquiry, further undermining his reliability. This litany of issues suggests a profound breakdown in oversight. Had Byrd been held accountable for these transgressions, Ashli Babbitt might still be alive today. Instead, the system opted for silence and cover-up, safeguarding Byrd at the cost of public trust.
The Lewis list is more than an administrative safeguard; it’s a glaring testament to institutional dysfunction. On one hand, it aims to prevent unreliable officers from derailing legal proceedings. On the other, the secrecy surrounding it serves to protect not just the compromised individuals, but a system desperately clinging to its own fractured credibility. Prominent critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and former federal prosecutor Paul Butler have long argued that the confidentiality of the Lewis list undermines public trust. Butler asserts that this secrecy denies the public an opportunity to scrutinize those who are supposed to uphold the law. Similarly, the ACLU emphasizes that such concealment disproportionately harms marginalized communities, who are often the most frequent victims of law enforcement abuse. This veil of secrecy is not an unfortunate byproduct—it is a deliberate act designed to shield institutional reputation rather than promote accountability.
This situation leads to significant questions about the culture within law enforcement and prosecutorial bodies. Why is an officer whose credibility cannot withstand cross-examination still allowed to carry a badge and a gun? How can the public be expected to respect the authority of individuals that the justice system itself deems unreliable? Lieutenant Byrd’s alleged presence on the Lewis list underscores this hypocrisy. Byrd is viewed as too risky to testify under oath, yet he was entrusted with patrolling the Capitol and, on January 6th, taking a life. Even more unsettling, Byrd was promoted after the shooting of Ashli Babbitt—a move that seems less a recognition of merit and more a calculated attempt by Democrat-aligned interests to deter any investigation, let alone prosecution. This inconsistency does more than confuse; it corrodes public faith in the institutions meant to serve and protect.
Such selective accountability and secrecy cannot be separated from the partisan context in which they occur. In a capital dominated by Democrat-aligned power, the emphasis seems to be on controlling the narrative rather than exposing the uncomfortable truths that might disrupt it. The maintenance of secrecy surrounding the Lewis list allows those in power to avoid the discomfort of addressing systemic flaws. Transparency and accountability—cornerstones of any functioning democracy—are tossed aside when maintaining control takes precedence over justice.
The Lewis list thus stands not as an emblem of reform but as a symbol of systemic hypocrisy. Accountability is harsh and swift for ordinary citizens who step out of line, yet virtually nonexistent for those protected by powerful interests. In shielding Lieutenant Byrd—whose history suggests he is unfit for his role—the system sends a clear message: reform is unnecessary, and those who follow the rules are expendable. The public is left grappling with the uncomfortable truth that this is not merely about one officer, one tragic incident, or one confidential list; it is about an entrenched pattern of evasion and ethical compromise.
The American people deserve a justice system that earns their trust—a system that demands integrity from its enforcers and holds them accountable regardless of political expediency. The continued existence of the Lewis list, coupled with reports linking Lieutenant Byrd to its concealed ranks, represents a fundamental failing. Ashli Babbitt paid the ultimate price because of this failure. If we are ever to restore faith in our institutions, we must demand transparency, push for meaningful reforms, and reject the normalization of secrecy and double standards. Only then can we hope to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law—where compromised officers and the institutions that protect them no longer operate in the shadows, shielded from the scrutiny they so richly deserve.
If you don't already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse or medium.