"All that transpired played a role in his condition," said the medical examiner, in the case of Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died after the January 6th breaching of the Capitol.

"His office said that it attributes death to natural causes when it can be ascribed to disease alone and that 'if death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.'" Yet the medical examiner, Francisco J. Diaz, determined that Sicknick died of "natural causes."

I'm reading "Officer Attacked in Capitol Riot Died of Strokes, Medical Examiner Rules The determination is likely to complicate efforts to prosecute anyone in the death of the officer, Brian Sicknick" (NYT).

"The determination is likely to complicate the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute anyone in the death of Officer Sicknick, 42; two men have been charged with assaulting him by spraying an unknown chemical on him outside the Capitol. But an autopsy found no evidence that Officer Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or any internal or external injuries.... Two men were charged last month with assaulting Officer Sicknick, but prosecutors have avoided linking the attack to his death...."

That's written confusingly. If "prosecutors have avoided linking the attack to his death," then what are the "efforts to prosecute anyone in the death of Officer Sicknick"? The assault is an assault regardless of whether it caused a death that happened to occur soon afterward. But there's also that discrepancy between what the medical examiner said — "All that transpired played a role in his condition" — and the assertion that the finding of death by "natural causes" excludes the idea that death "was hastened by an injury."

Not discussed in the New York Times article is the way the media ran with the notion that the Capitol protesters had killed a cop. That's the legend they created, and I bet that legend will live.

FROM THE EMAIL: I'm getting a lot of email, much of it expanding what I've already said in that last paragraph. I get the sense many readers need that to be said more elongatedly, more emphatically. But let me give you this emailed comment, from James. It's short and pithy, and it kicks things up with an observation that I didn't make — speculation that there was deliberate delay to give life to the legend:

Maybe the reason prosecutors have not tried to link anyone to Officer Sicknick’s death or charge anyone with homicide is that they have known for months that he died of natural causes and there was no homicide. The powers that be just did not bother to let the rest of us know this until after the “they killed a cop” narrative was firmly rooted in the public mind.

ALSO: Glenn Greenwald is especially outraged for the way other journalists treated him: 

Because of its centrality to the media narrative and agenda, anyone who tried to point out the serious factual deficiencies in this story — in other words, people trying to be journalists — were smeared by Democratic Party loyalists who pretend to be journalists as "Sicknick Truthers,” white nationalist sympathizers, and supporters of insurrection.

For the crime of trying to determine the factual truth of what happened, my character was constantly impugned by these propagandistic worms, as was anyone else's who tried to tell the truth about Sicknick's tragic death. Because one of the first people to highlight the journalistic truth here was former Trump official Darren Beattie of Revolver News and one of the few people on television willing to host doubts about the official story was Tucker Carlson, any doubts about the false Sicknick story — no matter how well-grounded in truth, facts, reason and evidence — were cast as fascism and white supremacy, and those raising questions smeared as "truthers”: the usual dreary liberal insults for trying to coerce people into submitting to their lies....

"A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that 55% of Republicans falsely believe Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election was the result of illegal voting or rigging."

"Additionally, 60% of Republicans incorrectly agree that the election was stolen from Republican Donald Trump." 

CNN reports, aggressively inserting the view that the people who were polled are wrong. I believe that's a very unusual way to report an opinion poll, with insistence that the opinion is wrong and apart from any factual reporting that makes it perfectly obvious that the opinion is mistaken. 

This displays a desperate fear of the opinion, and I don't think it does much good. The urge to stamp the opinion out will tend to make those who hold it grip more tightly: What are they afraid of? Are they trying to get me to move on, telling me there's nothing to see here?

CNN continues:

What is perfectly clear, however, is that Republicans' lack of faith in our current election infrastructure is a direct result of Trump's historic efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 results.

It's "perfectly clear" why people have this opinion? This is a news article, reporting a poll, and it's making an absolute assertion about why human beings believe what they do. That doesn't inspire confidence. It makes people suspicious, perhaps paranoid. 

FROM THE EMAIL: Cheryl writes: 

“Election infrastructure...” 

Seems like that word is being softened up to mean anything they want it to mean. Wonder why. 

Good catch. I'll boldface the word in the quoted text above. Cheryl's right. There's been a lot of talk lately from Democrats around the word "infrastructure." I was just saying: "It's a propaganda word to the core."

AND: Temujin emails:

The only thing missing from this article was the word 'debunked' as in, these false theories have been clearly debunked. Which, of course, they have not.

The key to this is that the fraud, or at least the appearance of fraud has never been fully examined, investigated, or allowed to be. Even those few court 'appearances' were mostly tossed out of court for 'lack of standing' or due to lack of evidence. Yes, it's hard to obtain evidence when your discovery time is extremely short, and the states have it locked away, or thrown away, or it has simply 'disappeared'.

What we have had, since the surprising closing of the polls late in the evening in 4 key cities, and the more surprising change from a massive Trump lead to a Biden surge taking place while the polls were 'closed' at 1-4 am, is a barrage of media sources, Big Tech, and 'expert' talking heads telling us all how this was clearly a clean election, no fraud, and all questions have been answered, all theories, debunked. I personally will go to my grave not believing that 80 million Americans — more than voted for any previous person in our history- got out and voted for Joe Biden who had spent the previous 18 months locked up in a basement with an occasional outing to mispronounce names or forget where he was.

There are roughly 74 million people in this country walking around right now with a nagging nervousness in their gut, like a wound that will not go away. Too many of us, and I clearly include me in this, strongly suspect a massive foul play — a coup — took place on November 3. We are suspicious of what took place before, during, and certainly after election day. Demanding we believe the networks is hardly the answer to clearing this up.

And the overall complete and total censorship and dismissal of the topic — by Big Tech, the networks, major news outlets, and talking heads — only exacerbates our suspicions. That CNN- the network most famous for promoting the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax, purposely misquoting Trump on his Charlottesville comments, showcasing preposterous liars with fabulous stories about Justice Kavanaugh, calling flat-out riots destroying our cities 'peaceful protests', and sporting insurrection tears — has a show called "Reality Check" is all you need to know about the USA in 2020, 2021.

That the Reuters/Ipsos poll only shows 55% of Republicans still questioning things shows how much work the media has already done to make this all disappear. That number should be at 80%. It probably is. We know how inaccurate our polls have been over the last few years. Yet we still crank them out — daily.

Owen writes:  

Remarkable behavior by CNN, as you point out. Reminds me of the line, “The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

And mezzrow says: 

On truth and elections. Here’s a definition of what term 'liberal' means from my favorite reactionary. On these terms, I will always proudly identify as liberal. It’s the only identity politics that has meaning to me.

There exist two interpretations of the popular vote, one democratic, the other liberal. 

According to the democratic interpretation what the majority resolves upon is true; according to the liberal interpretation the majority merely chooses one option. 

A dogmatic and absolutist interpretation, the one; a skeptical and discreet interpretation, the other. – Don Colacho

And Tim writes: 

Somehow, both Hayes and Kennedy avoided going down in history with an asterisk beside their name. I do not think Biden is going to avoid that fate. A big part of both Hayes and Kennedy avoiding that fate was their attempt to reconcile with their foes. But Biden has never been the sharpest pencil in the box.

AND: Bob Boyd writes:

That doesn't inspire confidence. It makes people suspicious, perhaps paranoid. 

I think this kind of thing does inspire confidence in those who choose to believe The Narrative.

CNN knows what it is doing with this stuff. It's not a blunder. It's not poor journalism. It's the new journalism. Their role is not to report facts, it's to report their expert determination of the correct opinion.

There is no factual reporting included because it is not the role of news consumers to determine which opinion is correct and which is mistaken. Facts are for experts to sift through, who will then report their determination of the correct opinion. Wise consumers will adopt that expert opinion. Failure to adopt that opinion is a clear indication of a serious character flaw.

Am I being paranoid?

And Wild Swan writes: 

Believe is kind of a funny word which may make "falsely believing" an impossibility. What would Wittgenstein say? Can I "falsely believe" in the sense that I would be able to say "I falsely believe?"

Wittgenstein said no.. He said: I can believe a falsehood (false belief) but I am not able to carry out an action - "falsely believing" - that means believing and not believing?

Continuing on from him, I say: "Truly believing," as a description of the belief of many Republicans about the 2020 election means "sincerely believing," rather than "correctly believing." Its opposite is not "falsely believing" but "pretending to believe" or hypocrisy.

Go further. Can someone else truly say of me: "She falsely believes?" Is there such a thing as a psychological state which is a false way to believe, as opposed to a false belief. Can you falsely believe CNN or Jen Psaki?

The significance of the question is that a "false belief" implies that there is a truth somewhere whereas "falsely believing" is a nonsense phrase - something a bureaucrat or any other dullard is well able to say about the ciphers they ruin without the phrase ever diverting them into falsely questing for truth.

AND: Dwight writes: 

USA Today has been doing this for months regarding the election... "Trump falsely claims..."

I've been waiting for "Franklin Graham falsely claims there is a God".

*** 

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.