National overview
The Times corrects the record for the death of Officer Sicknick, sort of
A few days ago, the New York Times quietly “updated” its report, which had been published a month earlier, claiming that Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick had been killed by a firefighter during the January 6 riot. According to the update, “new information has emerged about the death of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who is questioning the initial cause of his death by officials close to Capitol police.” As I outlined in a column last week, the Times called ‘new information’ started appearing the same day the report was submitted on 8 January. The report was (and still is) titled: “Capitol Police Officer Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It was not the only such Times report of that day. There was another, titled, “He dreamed of being a police officer, then he was killed by a pro-Trump mob,” in which the Times claims: On Wednesday, supporters of the Trump president took the citadel of democracy attacked [i.e., the Capitol], the mr. Sicknick, 42, overpowered and hit him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody blister in his head, Mr. Sicknick rushed to the hospital and was placed on life support. He passed away Thursday night. Yet KHOU reported in Houston on the morning of January 8 that Sicknick had died of a stroke. In the KHOU story, no mention is made of the officer who was hit by a fire extinguisher. It is alleged that the crash took place “at the Capitol during riots”, and a caption below the officer’s photo stated that he had died “due to injuries sustained during the riot at the Capitol.” The headline of the KHOU story attributes the conclusion that a stroke was the cause of death to the head of the trade union Capitol Police, Gus Papathanasiou. The chapter of the story identified Papathanasiou as the source of the erroneous report that Sicknick died Thursday (the day after the riot) during the day; in fact, he was still on life support at the time and was declared late Thursday night. My above column noted that Tucker Carlson of Fox News (relying on a report from the Revolver News website) had just reported that Sicknick was not taken directly from the Capitol to the hospital. On the contrary, the officer did not just return it to the police headquarters; he texted his brother hours after the siege, saying that although he had been ‘twice sprayed with peppers’, he was’ in’ good condition ‘. In addition, on February 2, Carlson pointed out in a CNN report, according to law enforcement officials, that medical investigators found no evidence of blunt trauma to Sicknick’s body and concluded that the firefighter’s bill was not true. was not. To make it clear, my goal was to focus on this story not to break news, much less to claim credit for the Times’ implicit acknowledgment that the original stories were wrong. In addition to Tucker Carlson, Revolver News and KHOU, Julie Kelly of American Greatness was also about this before I was – and emphasized that I was deceived. I focused on the story for two reasons. First of all, I’m one of the analysts who uncritically relied on the Times’ initial report and concluded that Sicknick had been “killed” by the rioters – not a long logical leap when you say that a police officer was violated, does not give credit. over the head with a deadly object by rioters who deliberately and violently confronted security forces. Julie Kelly brought me back into play yesterday because I ‘revived’ the ‘narrative that Sicknick was killed’, which I certainly did – even though I’m not, as she describes, a ‘NeverTrump Right’ political expert not. Because I repeated a very serious allegation that was not supported by credible evidence from identifiable sources, I found it important to make clear, to the extent that it is in my power to do so, that there is now great reason is to doubt the original report – while acknowledging (with a link to the column in which I included the “murder” statement) that I was just as guilty as any other analyst or reporter who reinforced the dubious report . Second, and more importantly, the death of Officer Sicknick has become a building block for the House’s indictment of former President Trump and of the Democratic House’s allegations made publicly in their provisional February 2 . By that time, there was already substantial reason to question the fire extinguisher’s allegation. Prosecutors have an obligation, based on due process and professional ethics, to disclose revealing evidence. This includes evidence that is not in line with the theory of guilt they put forward. Even if Sicknick’s death was causally linked to the riots, prosecutors would be obliged to correct the record if it did not happen as they explicitly suggested it did. The indictment managers did not do this last week when NR published my column, and to this day, although the indictment is now over, we are still in the dark about the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of the officer at the age of 42. . This brings us back to the original Times report. The ‘updated’ version is, to put it mildly, confusing. Initially, it attributed to unidentified “authorities” the allegation that Sicknick “died from injuries sustained” while physically acting with Trump insurgents. ” The Times then describes Sicknick as “only the fourth member of the force killed in the line of duty since its inception two centuries ago.” The allegation is published as if it were a fixed fact, without source. But has it been established that Sicknick was ‘killed’? Has it been established that he died from injuries he sustained while physically involved with Trump rioters? To my knowledge it is not. And even the Times implicitly admits that he is unsure of what he is saying. A few paragraphs later, the same report reads: The circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Sicknick was not immediately clear, and Capitol police only said he “died from injuries he had on duty.” It seems a lot of lawyers. “Sustained in the line of duty” is not the same as “sustained” while we are physically “dealing with pro-Trump rioters.” The Times further acknowledged that “law enforcement officers initially said Mr Sicknick was beaten with a fire extinguisher”, but that “police sources and investigators later had a fight or were hit,” and that “one law enforcement officer” ( Of course not identified) says that “medical experts said [Sicknick] did not die of blunt force trauma. The latest version of the Capitol police appears to be: ‘He returned to his branch office and collapsed. . . . He was taken to a local hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. What injuries? We are not told. Although the Times further concedes that it is’ unclear where Mr. Sicknick’s meeting with rioters took place ‘, the newspaper adds strangely that’ photos and videos posted by a local reporter during the night of chaos show a man spraying a fire extinguisher outside the Senate. room, with a small number of police officers overlooking the area on a nearby staircase. Okay, but what then? The Times does not say that these officers included Sicknick, and the original allegation of the newspaper – which became the formal allegation of the House Accusation Managers – was that Sicknick was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. Given the way the Times has already confused matters, to the point that he had to provide a not-very-constructive “update”, why speculate that the quoted photos and videos are relevant to Sicknick’s death? Meanwhile, the word “stroke” does not appear in the Times’ updated story. So is there a discount on the report that Sicknick died of a stroke, even though the allegation is attributed to a named person, presumably able to know – the head of the Capitol Police union? And what is the basis for the Times’ ongoing allegation that Sicknick died from injuries he sustained while physically involved with Trump rioters? Of course, it is quite possible – perhaps even probable – that this is true. But without an autopsy report, and with indications that Sicknick was able to return to his office from the siege, he later told his brother that he was in good condition, even though he had been pepper sprayed, and no signs of had a blunt trauma. this assertion? After all, the Times updated his story because the story, as originally published, was misleading. And Democratic House executives – after basing their allegations solely on the Times’ dubious fire extinguisher claim – heard the circumstances surrounding Sicknick’s death during their indictment. Whether or not accusations have ever been pursued, it is imperative that we carefully account for what happened on January 6, including an accurate record of what happened to Officer Brian Sicknick. Since accusations have been pursued, we must also explain why the Home Managers did not clarify the circumstances of Sicknick’s death after making an explosive allegation about how it happened.