Why Are the Feds Hiding Brian Sicknick's Medical Report?

I have a theory: they're hiding it because the medical report says he died of a stroke, and suffered no injuries at all (that is, the stroke was not caused by the riots), and the feds are hiding this fact until their Democrat allies have their show trial for Trump.

Read this great article from Revolver.

I'm excerpting some but you should read it in context because he includes screencaps of media coverage which I'm not duplicating.

Narrative 1:0: The Brazen Lie

The day after Sicknick's reported death, depraved toilet paper company and full-time libel factory known as The New York Times jumbo-tronned a massive, howler headline, later confirmed to be a Judith Miller-level damn dirty lie.

Narrative 1.0 absolutely saturated the airwaves, editorials, and social media. Every MSM outlet from USAToday to the NY Post to the Daily Dot repeated that Sicknick was "bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher." Not "sources say." Not "many believe" -- just a totally unqualified, unequivocal statement of fact.

In an unforgivable shocker, the House Trial Memorandum itself, which sets forth the very impeachment charges for which the 45th President stands accused, names Trump liable for "insurrectionists" that "killed a Capitol police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher." Their source? The New York Times.

But the toilet paper Times left a real stinker inside this one. Because every claim they made, every detail conveyed, was a lie.

Law enforcement officials now tell CNN that there was no fire extinguisher blow, no bloody gash, and no blunt force trauma to Sicknick's body when he died.

Not only that, but it is increasingly unclear when, where and if Sicknick was even rushed to the hospital.

As it turns out, multiple hours after the protest had already concluded, Sicknick texted his own brother Ken that very night he was basically fine, other than being "pepper sprayed twice," confirming he was safe and "in good shape."

Revolver then relays a strange detail: Sicknick's family was called on the phone Wednesday night and told, falsely, that Sicknick had died.

These calls were placed by the media.

Read the article for that.

...

Ken Sicknick had been told his brother collapsed inside the Capitol building, then was rushed to the hospital...

But the US Capitol Police's statement that night told a different story: he had returned to his office at the police division first.

Sometime between Sicknick being fine, healthy, and back in his office on Wednesday night, and dead or effectively dead on early Thursday evening, Sicknick apparently suffered a stroke. The sequence of when and how that happened should be the easiest part of this story to put to bed. And yet we are being told to take this faith -- or as the media likes to say: "without evidence."

Note that the bit about the stroke seems like speculation, but so what? The whole claim that Sicknick was "murdered" and had a "gash on his head" from being battered with a fire extinguisher was speculation, rumor, and Twitter bullshit.

The New York Times made up a lie -- or claimed they "verified" a fact, when in fact all they'd done is regurgitate TWITINT.

TWITINT is "Twitter intel." Because so much of our "journalism" and even government intelligence is now based exclusively on something someone saw @RangersFan69 said on Twitter, we should have a name for it.

TWITINT: It sometimes looks like real intelligence, except, gotcha!, it's just Twitter idiots, twittering nonsense.

4 Fortified facts don't need to be verified! Posted by: The NYT

Meanwhile, Government Propagandist Andy McCarthy -- who has such a child-like understanding of the world that he believes that because he's not corrupt (according to his own self-evaluation), then no one in the government could possibly be corrupt -- continues insisting that Sicknick was "murdered," and a case can be made "without any ambiguity" that the president is guilty of conspiracy to commit this "murder."

Now, McCarthy based that, probably, on the New York Times claim.

But now that the New York Times claim is known to be based on nothing but Twitter rumors and leftwing hopes and dreams -- where is the retraction? Where is the apology?

Where is the blistering attack on the Times for shitting out propagandistic lies, yet again? Where is the calling out of the New York Times for deliberately lying, "without any ambiguity"?

Why, it's almost as if... as if... National Review knows that their leftwing media allies are lying, but choose to repeat those lies anyway, because they're all on the same side now.

Former federal prosecutor, everyone.

Former federal prosecutor.

You really want that "shoot from the hip," "YOLO" style in someone who can literally have you put to death.

posted by Ace at 12:11 PM

| Access Comments