Connect with us

Politics

Is Donald Trump finished as a political force?

Avatar

Published

on


National review

The Times corrects the death toll of a sick officer, sort of

A few days ago, the New York Times quietly updated its report, published more than a month earlier, claiming that Capitol Hill cop Brian Sicknick was killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher during the riot in the January 6. According to the update, new information has emerged regarding the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick which calls into question the root cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police. As I detailed in a column last week, what The Times calls new information actually started to appear the same day the newspaper filed its report on January 8. That report was called (and still is) titled, Capitol Police Officer Dies of Injury in Pro-Trump Rampage. It wasn’t the only Times report to date. There was another, titled He Dreamed of Being a Policeman, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob, in which The Times claimed: On Wednesday pro-Trump supporters attacked this citadel of democracy [i.e., the Capitol], overpowered Mr Sicknick, 42, and hit him on the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody cut to the head, Mr Sicknick was rushed to hospital and placed on life support. He passed away Thursday evening. Yet as early as the morning of January 8, KHOU in Houston reported that Sicknick had died of a stroke. KHOU’s story made no mention of officers hit by a fire extinguisher. He did, however, claim that the stroke occurred on Capitol Hill during riots, and a caption under the officers’ photograph stated that he died from injuries sustained in the riot at the Capitol. The title of KHOU’s story attributes the conclusion that a stroke was the cause of death to the leader of the Capitol Police Union, Gus Papathanasiou. The body of the story identified Papathanasiou as its source for what turned out to be the erroneous report that Sicknick died Thursday (the day after the riot); in fact, he was still on life support at the time and was pronounced dead Thursday night. My aforementioned column noted that Fox Newss Tucker Carlson (relying on a report from the Revolver News website) had just reported that Sicknick had not been taken to the hospital directly from the Capitol. On the contrary, not only did the officer return to the police headquarters; he had texted his brother hours after the siege, stating that although he had been pepper sprayed twice, he was in good shape. Additionally, Carlson pointed to a CNN report on Feb. 2 that according to unidentified law enforcement officials, forensic scientists found no evidence of blunt trauma to Sicknicks’ body and concluded that the extinguisher story was not true. To be clear, my goal in focusing on this story was not to deliver the news, much less to claim credit for The Times’ implicit acknowledgment that its original stories were fake. In addition to Tucker Carlson, Revolver News and KHOU, American Greatness’s Julie Kelly was also on this topic before me and pointed out that I was being duped. I focused on the story for two reasons. First, I am one of the analysts who relied wholeheartedly on the Times’ initial report, inferring the conclusion that Sicknick was murdered by the rioters not a logical long jump if you credit the claim that a police officer was hit on the head with a fatal object by rioters who intentionally and forcibly confronted the security forces. Julie Kelly criticized me yesterday for regurgitating the account that Sicknick was murdered, which I certainly did although I’m not, as she describes it, a political expert on NeverTrump Right. Because I repeated a very serious allegation that had not been supported by credible evidence from identifiable sources, I thought it was important to clarify, as it is in my power to do so. , that there are now immense reasons to doubt the original. reporting while confessing (with a link to the column in which I included the murder allegation) that I was as guilty as any other analyst or journalist who amplified the questionable narrative. Second, and more importantly, the death of Officer Sicknick has become a building block in the impeachment of former President Trump by the House and the allegations made by the Democratic House impeachment officials who have been publicly filed in their preliminary brief on February 2. was already a substantial reason to question the extinguisher’s claim. Prosecutors have an obligation, rooted in due process and professional ethics, to reveal exculpatory evidence. This includes evidence that is inconsistent with the theory of guilt they put forward. Even if Sicknicks’ death was causally linked to the riot, prosecutors would be forced to correct the case if it did not happen the way they expressly said it happened. House impeachment officials did not do this last week when NR published my column on this matter, and to this day, although the impeachment trial is now over, we are still in the process. ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of the officers at age 42. Which brings us back to the original Times report. The updated version is, to put it mildly, confusing. First, he attributes to unidentified authorities the claim that Sicknick died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters. The Times goes on to describe Sicknick as the fourth member of the force to be killed in the line of duty since its founding two centuries ago. This statement is published as if it were an established fact, without a source. But has it been established that Sicknick was killed? Has it been established that he died of injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? To my knowledge, this is not the case. And even the Times implicitly admits it’s not sure what it’s saying. A few paragraphs later, the same report now states: The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknicks’ death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police only said he died from injuries sustained in the exercise of its functions. It sounds very legal. Supporting while on duty is not the same as sustained engagement while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters. The Times goes on to acknowledge that law enforcement officials initially said Mr Sicknick was hit by a fire extinguisher, but weeks later police sources and investigators disagreed as to whether he had been shot, and a law enforcement official) said medical experts said [Sicknick] did not die of blunt trauma. The latest version of Capitol Police events appears to be: He returned to his division office and collapsed. . . . He was taken to a local hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. What injuries? Have not been informed. Although The Times further admits that it is not clear where Mr Sicknicks encountered rioters, the newspaper oddly adds that photos and videos posted by a local reporter during the Night of Chaos showed a man spraying a fire extinguisher. outside the Senate chamber, with a small number of police officers overlooking the area via a nearby staircase. Okay, so what? The Times does not say those officers included Sicknick, and the papers initially claim that became the official House impeachment officials’ claim that Sicknick was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. In light of how The Times has confused things to the point of having to provide a not-so-uplifting update, why assume the photos and videos cited are relevant to Sicknicks’ death? Meanwhile, the word “stroke” does not appear in the updated Times story. So does the newspaper ignore the report that Sicknick died of a stroke, even though that claim has been attributed to a named person presumably able to know the leader of the Capitol Police Union? ? And what is the basis for the Times’ continuing claim that Sicknick died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? Of course, it is entirely possible, maybe even probable that this is true. But with no autopsy report, and with indications that Sicknick was able to return to his office after the siege, later told his brother he was in good shape despite being pepper sprayed and showing no signs of trauma. bluntly, why maintain this statement? After all, The Times updated her story because the story, as originally published, was misleading. And Democratic House officials, after basing their allegation solely on the Times ‘questionable fire extinguisher allegations, essentially avoided the circumstances surrounding Sicknicks’ death when they appeared at the impeachment trial. Regardless of whether the arraignment has already been brought, it is essential that we have an accurate account of what happened on January 6, including an accurate account of what happened to the ‘Agent Brian Sicknick. And since the indictment continued, we are also owed an explanation of why House officials failed to clarify the circumstances of Sicknicks’ death after making an explosive allegation about how it s ‘happened.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos



picture credit

ExBUlletin

to request, modification Contact us at Here or [email protected]