It looks like the lie about Officer Brian Sicknick’s murder is quietly being updated, long after credulous dupes used it as a political football.

UPDATE: New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.

...

Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.

“He returned to his division office and collapsed,” the Capitol Police said in the statement. “He was taken to a local hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.”

https://archive.vn/HPUoo

It looks like the lie about Officer Brian Sicknick’s murder — NOS4A2

What lie is that?

That he was murdered by someone wielding a fire-extinguisher.

But murdered he was. And on my reading of the article, being hit with a fire extinguisher was not ruled out. And so, What Is Your Point?

He wasn’t murdered.

“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol

That’s quite the claim for someone who was just murdered by a fire-extinguisher.

Apparently, you disgusting ***** ** ****, you do not know what murder is. But you do not mind spreading dis- and un-information. The liar is you, the lies what you post here. You are an unusually toxic person; god help those near you!

And do a little research on what murder is.

The House managers used the lie in the memo, and the New York Times spread the misinformation to their readers, but I’m the liar? You’re a useful idiot, Tim.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

And more than that. If Sicnick dies as a result of the riot, that's murder. Even if he dies 364 days later, in most jurisdictions. But the point is that he died as a result of illegal activity at the riot. That's murder and that's an end of it I have no idea what you're about.

Anyone else notice that Mitch McConnell's speech, directly after the acquittal, saying that it was undeniable that Trump was responsible for incitement, directly contradicted Trump's own defense?

the New York Times spread the misinformation to their readers, but I’m the liar? — NOS4A2

This guy misses Trump so much he's crying about a possible misreport by the NYT that has in fact been updated as new information appeared. Like god damn what a boring loser.

Never argue with trumpworld inhabitants. As they're beyond reason, trying to reason with them is futile. This has been proved a million times.

Yep. McConnell made the case clearly. He padded what may seem to be a contradiction(because of his vote of acquittal) by virtue of explaining that the impeachment process is not the place to try Trump for inciting the insurrection because if found guilty, the mandatory move/result is mere removal from office, and that would just let Trump get away with it. Nothing is stopping Trump from being charged for the crime in the justice system, aside from not doing it. McConnell even said clearly that whether or not Trump gets away with it will be determined not by the impeachment process(which had no ability to render punishment for the crime aside from removal from office), but rather by whether or not he is tried in a court of criminal law.

McConnell even said clearly that whether or not Trump gets away with it will be determined not by the impeachment process(which had no ability to render punishment for the crime aside from removal from office), but rather by whether or not he is tried in a court of criminal law. — creativesoul

Right. Cynics say that McConnell was having a bet each way - not voting for impeachment so as not to antagonise the Trump base, but then declaring Trump culpable because, well, he is. He's a slippery character, McConnell, but at least he said it.

...at least he said it. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Cannot stand that guy. He is not a sincere person. Very dishonest, in a lies of omission sort of way. He should be impeached for openly admitting that he could not perform his sworn oath to be an impartial witness in a presidential impeachment(the first one). That was ground for recusal, but he stayed and acted as a juror nonetheless.

As far as I'm concerned, each and every public official that fostered the big lie needs to be removed. All of them. McConnell is not one of them though. He was very careful regarding what he said about Trump's right to redress grievance during the whole Trump go fund me lame duck session.

This guy misses Trump so much he's crying about a possible misreport by the NYT that has in fact been updated as new information appeared. Like god damn what a boring loser.

Since you cry at the mere sight of truth, believe things uncritically, and use "like" in the worst fashion, I'm forced to imagine your voice with a high rising terminal.

Since you cry at the mere sight of truth, believe things uncritically, and use "like" in the worst fashion, I'm forced to imagine your voice with a high rising terminal — NOS4A2

Since you write like this I'm forced to believe you haven't gotten pussy in well over a year

Anyone else notice that Mitch McConnell's speech, directly after the acquittal, saying that it was undeniable that Trump was responsible for incitement, directly contradicted Trump's own defense?

It also contradicts American law and 1st amendment jurisprudence. But people such as yourself are not concerned with actual law, just political show-trials.

It would make my life easier if you put a question mark after each of your sentences. Like this?

It's kind of funny how some people miss the forest for the trees. Two independent law enforcement sources claimed Sicknick was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. He died later on. I don't know what NYT originally reported but the cause of death might be different than what was expected, he still died following the riot. Possibly a cause unrelated to the riot at this point in time. And in this a grand conspiracy is intuited. Meanwhile the straight line from Trump's actions and words for months (even years, see his 2016 performances to understand what being weak and tough mean) and the end result is a fabrication in such a person's mind. :zip:

More people did vote for Hillary than Trump (2,868,686 more), but Presidents aren't chosen by the popular vote. — Michael

The point was that more people should have voted for Hillary when it was Hillary vs. Trump compared to Biden vs. Trump. Hillary should have won by a larger margin than Biden did. If you want to actually believe that Biden received more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her, then I guess you'll believe almost anything.

However, if you can admit that Biden did receive more votes, but they were misinformed votes, based on the unchecked character assassination of Trump over 4 years, that hadn't happen when he ran against Hillary, then we can probably agree on something.

Wtf are "misinformed" votes? Biden got more votes than Hillary. Period.

its the type of vote you would have cast if you lived in the US.

He's a slippery character, McConnell, but at least he said it. — Wayfarer

Hopefully this is the first step to the Republicans disassociating themselves from Trump. If that happens who knows what will become of all the disenfranchised Trump supporters, maybe a third party? That's what ought to happen.

However, if you can admit that Biden did receive more votes, but they were misinformed votes, based on the unchecked character assassination of Trump over 4 years, that hadn't happen when he ran against Hillary, then we can probably agree on something. — Harry Hindu

That "unchecked character assassination" was acts of informing, not disinforming.

It also contradicts American law and 1st amendment jurisprudence. — NOS4A2

You keep making clear you do not understand the US Constitution. Which is perfectly ok if you're not American - even a lot of Americans do not. But you keep posting as if you do.

To anyone who has not already figured it out, nos4 is just a rash that afflicts attempts at reasonable discussion. The right medicine is to ignore him completely, and to try hard not to scratch when it itches.

If you want to actually believe that Biden received more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her, then I guess you'll believe almost anything. — Harry Hindu

Biden won 81,268,924 votes. Hillary won 65,853,514 votes. You're delusional if you think that 15,415,410+ votes for Biden were fraudulent.

You might as well argue that because Trump won 62,984,828 votes in 2016 and 74,216,154 votes in 2020 then 11,231,326+ votes for Trump in 2020 were fraudulent. It's nonsense.

The simple fact of the matter is that 26,646,736 more people voted in 2020 than in 2016, with some going to Biden and some going to Trump. Some of these people weren't eligible to vote in 2016 and some of these people chose not to vote in 2016 but chose to vote in 2020.

I remember some polling done in 2016 that found that Trump would have lost against any other candidate than Hillary. Against Hillary he had a chance. And obviously he was successful...then.

Now for the Democrats, Trump is what Hillary was for the Republicans in 2016...just on steroids. So good luck for Republicans picking him up for his "second term" in 2024 (at the age of 78).

Or perhaps Americans love polarization so much, that they could do a rematch of Trump vs Hillary again in 2024. And why not? After all, no younger people than young octogenarians need not to rule the US, right?

You keep making clear you do not understand the US Constitution. Which is perfectly ok if you're not American - even a lot of Americans do not. But you keep posting as if you do.

Unfortunately your capabilities only allow you to make the accusation, but you can never back them up. I can refer to Supreme Court precedent to show why Trump’s words aren’t incitement; you cannot. So if you can ever find some bite behind that bark, let me know.

There is a difference between a prior claim of a right that does not in fact exist, and convicting or acquitting in result of a trial on the basis of facts presented in evidence. You are, as usual disingenuously, kelly-anning the language. And again, what is your point? If to establish your own notoriety, you've succeeded. It seems your theme is that nothing is perfect, therefore everything is wrong. Which is mental illness. You're sick, or bad in not-a-good way, and no law against both.

Trump has just put out a press release which says that Mitch McConnell is a ‘dour, sullen, unsmiling political hack’. This seems perfectly accurate to me. But the problem is, McConnell’s accuser is himself a pathological liar and a proven failure. It still confounds me that so many people - even apparently intelligent and articulate people - are going all in for Trump, when it’s so obvious that he lies, lies, lies. Don’t lies matter? Or put the other way, doesn’t truth matter? Doesn’t it stand for anything?

The Republican Party badly needs to put out an official release disclaiming Trump’s lies and conspiracy theory nonsense. In other words, they should back McConnell, political hack that he is. The fact that they won’t, or can’t, shows that something is still deeply rotten in that party. All of the Republicans that came out against Trump are having the blowtorch held to their belly, but they’re the ones who should be leading it.

Truth matters, facts matter, and no honest person could say that Trump is not a pathological liar. Acknowledgement of that has to become part of the public discourse.