The Insurrection Lie II: False Reports ...Continue To Unravel.

[Cow Poke]

I don't consider honoring him to be politicizing his death.

Sicknick was a staunch Republican who actually wrote letters to officials AGAINST Trump's impeachment.
He was a very vocal Trump SUPPORTER (according to a former aid of Nancy Pelosi, and media postings).
To use him as a symbol of the left's vendetta against Trump can be nothing other than politicization.

I think that's why you'll see very little information coming forward - the liberals picked the wrong dude as the poster boy for their hate campaign.

That's what the family asked that this NOT happen.

[Watermelon]

I accidently EDITED your post instead of quoting and responding, and for that I apologize -- however, the "elderly man" example was not mine - I was responding to it and ripping it to shreds

Well, first of all, you have a number of problems here.... in fact, a whole BUNCH of problems....

No, the real problem is that you can't seem to articulate your case, and are all over the place trying to defend lies.

You'd have to assume that Sicknick was "an elderly man" - that's the example you gave.

No - I was using the example given to me -- he's NOT an "elderly man".

In your example, the "elderly man" would need to die during the commission of the crime - not have a heart attack the next day.

Calm yourself, brother - it wasn't MY example - it was a really bad example that was presented to me, and I proceeded to shred.

Since the rest of your post wrongly assumes it was MY example in the first place, I'll just allow you to suffer in ignorance.

[Mountain Man]

Same with the "anonymous" Capitol Police offers who supposedly gave the first account - and later became "sources close to the Capitol". Those 'sources' will never testify because I don't believe they exist.

Or they exist, but they're lying and don't want to be held accountable.

[Mountain Man]

I accidently EDITED your post instead of quoting and responding, and for that I apologize -- however, the "elderly man" example was not mine - I was responding to it and ripping it to shreds

Last edited by Cow Poke; Today, 10:15 AM.

Classic.

[Cow Poke]

Classic.

It's called "doing a CP".

[Cow Poke]

Or they exist, but they're lying and don't want to be held accountable.

That's certainly possible, but the fact that they were first referred to as Capitol Police, then when that story blew up, they were referred to as "sources close to the Capitol" --- I'm leaning toward them being totally made up.

But you're absolutely right about one thing - IF they exist, and IF the people who used them as sources want them to step up, there's no way they would.

Now, what would be really INTERESTING is if one of them (was actually real) and stepped up and said, "'I'm one of the sources referred to, but I never said...." (Then they need to make sure they never wander into Fort Marcy Park)

[Stoic]

But it wasn't "the law" as you claimed -- I kept reading that thing thinking "this sounds more like a union-negotiated contract than law", and - sure enough - it was.

It's 34 U.S.Code Subtitle 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter XI. (i.e. it's the law)

His mother is not an anonymous source. Remember, it was "anonymous sources" that started this pack of lies in the first place.

Where do you think his mother was getting her information?

First they were "Capitol Police", and when the story was exposed as a lie, they were reduced to "sources close to the Capitol".

Most recently, they are "law enforcement sources".

Lies, lies and more lies.

So you keep claiming.

No, we should believe that the "anonymous sources" shouldn't have lied in the first place. And DURN sure shouldn't have been relied upon for such an important factor.

And it still hasn't been shown that they lied.

It was used to hype up the media and the American people to support the sham impeachment.

Why are you so willing to believe lies rather than facts?

I'm just not as eager to call them lies as you are.

[Cow Poke]

It's 34 U.S.Code Subtitle 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter XI. (i.e. it's the law)

Ah, so just like the Democrats and the media, you're revising and extending your remarks.

Where do you think his mother was getting her information?

That's a big part of the problem - she's getting conflicting stories, but apparently she's satisfied that her son died of a stroke due to a blood clot.

I'm just not as eager to call them lies as you are.

Well, we know for sure that the "bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher" story was a lie.

Or are you going to go back to defending that 'big 'un'?

[Stoic]

Ah, so just like the Democrats and the media, you're revising and extending your remarks.

In what way? I didn't just say anything that wasn't in the link.

That's a big part of the problem - she's getting conflicting stories, but apparently she's satisfied that her son died of a stroke due to a blood clot.

I am too. But that doesn't mean the blood clot wasn't due to his official duty protecting the Capitol.

Well, we know for sure that the "bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher" story was a lie.

Or are you going to go back to defending that 'big 'un'?

We know for sure that it was false. And I'll concede that it may be the result of a lie.

I just see the possibility that it was the result of a series of misunderstandings, and a lack of due diligence in checking facts, rather than an intentional lie.

Did the law enforcement sources lie when they said that Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher? Maybe he was, and it just didn't get caught on video. Maybe they knew that someone was hit with a fire extinguisher (we have video of it), and mistakenly thought it was him. Maybe they made it up so they would sound authoritative.

Did the change from "he died after being hit with a fire extinguisher" to "he was killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher" result from a lie? It seems like a pretty natural mistake to me, so I'm not sure it was a lie. For a reporter at the NYT, it's a pretty egregious mistake, but not clearly intentional.

Once some people know the truth that Sicknick was not killed by being bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher, does that mean anyone who repeats the false claim is lying? They might be, or they might not have heard the truth, or might not have believed it when they heard it.

So what to you is "clearly a lie", to me is "clearly false, and possibly a lie".

[Cow Poke]

In what way? I didn't just say anything that wasn't in the link.

You implied that "the law" mandated that Sicknick's death be attributed to his alleged injuries at the Capitol simply because the stroke happened "within 24 hours".

I am too. But that doesn't mean the blood clot wasn't due to his official duty protecting the Capitol.

It doesn't mean that it was.

We know for sure that it was false. And I'll concede that it may be the result of a lie.

Wow, how noble of you!

I just see the possibility that it was the result of a series of misunderstandings, and a lack of due diligence in checking facts, rather than an intentional lie.

On what basis? Only because you don't WANT to believe it was a lie. It was still being foisted as the truth even after it came under suspicion. Would THAT be considered a lie in your little "wanna believe so badly" worlld?

Did the law enforcement sources

The ALLEGED law enforcement sources

lie when they said that Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher? Maybe he was, and it just didn't get caught on video.

Oh, come on - I thought we had gotten past that --- ZERO evidence of blunt force trauma. If there were even the slightest HINT of actual injury, you don't think Schumer and Nancy would be shouting that from the rooftop?

Maybe they

Who is "they"? We don't even know "they" exist.

knew that someone was hit with a fire extinguisher (we have video of it), and mistakenly thought it was him. Maybe they made it up so they would sound authoritative.

What's it called when you "make something up" that isn't true? I'll give you a hint -- it starts with an "L" and ends with "ie".

Did the change from "he died after being hit with a fire extinguisher" to "he was killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher" result from a lie? It seems like a pretty natural mistake to me, so I'm not sure it was a lie. For a reporter at the NYT, it's a pretty egregious mistake, but not clearly intentional.

Man, if I'm ever caught doing something illegal or unethical, I want YOU as my defender!

Once some people know the truth that Sicknick was not killed by being bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher, does that mean anyone who repeats the false claim is lying? They might be, or they might not have heard the truth, or might not have believed it when they heard it.

So what to you is "clearly a lie", to me is "clearly false, and possibly a lie".

You certainly are amusing. But I appreciate the dialogue, you're helping me explore all the possibilities that this wasn't a big ol' lie straight from the pits of hell.

[Stoic]

You implied that "the law" mandated that Sicknick's death be attributed to his alleged injuries at the Capitol simply because the stroke happened "within 24 hours".

No, the law mandates that the stroke "shall be presumed to constitute a personal injury ... sustained in the line of duty" unless evidence establishes otherwise.

It doesn't mean that it was.

Unless evidence establishes otherwise, that's the presumption.

Wow, how noble of you!

Thank you.

On what basis? Only because you don't WANT to believe it was a lie. It was still being foisted as the truth even after it came under suspicion. Would THAT be considered a lie in your little "wanna believe so badly" worlld?

Not necessarily. I can be suspicious that some claim is false while you foist it as the truth, and it doesn't mean you are lying.

The ALLEGED law enforcement sources

Sure, I left out a possibility. Reporters at the NYT may have made up the anonymous sources so they could claim that he was hit by a fire extinguisher, knowing that it would eventually become an important part of the case against Trump, even though he had an alibi.

But as I've been trying to point out, "maybe they lied" isn't quite the same as "they lied".

Oh, come on - I thought we had gotten past that --- ZERO evidence of blunt force trauma.

ALLEGEDLY. Remember, that information was from an anonymous source, and you don't trust anonymous sources.

I, on the other hand, am willing to accept that there was no evidence of blunt force trauma, unless information comes out indicating otherwise.

If there were even the slightest HINT of actual injury, you don't think Schumer and Nancy would be shouting that from the rooftop?

Would they? I'm not sure they think the issue is as important as you do.

Who is "they"? We don't even know "they" exist.

Right. But we don't know that they don't.

What's it called when you "make something up" that isn't true? I'll give you a hint -- it starts with an "L" and ends with "ie".

As I've said, maybe they lied.

Man, if I'm ever caught doing something illegal or unethical, I want YOU as my defender!

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll be happy to be a character witness.

You certainly are amusing. But I appreciate the dialogue, you're helping me explore all the possibilities that this wasn't a big ol' lie straight from the pits of hell.

Glad to be of service.

[Cow Poke]

.......

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. But take a closer look at the two Capitol Police officers who previously were allowed to lie in honor.

Officer Jacob Chestnut distinguished himself by being caught unaware when he was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range while manning the metal detector.

It's odd how you somehow seem to think disparaging this officer's death, where it's absolutely clear he was at work, on the job, and died as a direct undisputable result of that situation, helps your case.

Chestnut was on guard at the Document Door entrance to the U.S. Capitol when gunman Russell Eugene Weston Jr. entered. Chestnut, manning a metal detector, was caught unaware when Weston shot him in the back of the head at point-blank range, killing him instantly.

Chestnut and fellow police officer Detective John Gibson were the only two people killed in the attack. A female tourist suffered minor injuries after bullets grazed her shoulder and face.

Officer John Gibson distinguished himself by not hiding under his desk, and by returning fire and killing Weston after he was mortally wounded.

Same here - disparaging his death by wording it in this manner is despicable.

On July 24, 1998, shooting suspect Russell Eugene Weston Jr. entered the United States Capitol. He shot and killed Officer Jacob Chestnut outside Representative Tom Delay's congressional office. Gibson confronted the suspect and was also shot. Despite being mortally wounded, Gibson was able to return fire and wounded the suspect.

Not to denigrate the officers,

You have. Both were clearly killed while on the job in a horrible incident at the hands of a nutter.

but you may have an elevated opinion of what it takes to receive this honor.

You mean, ACTUALLY being killed in the line of duty in the Nation's Capitol, as opposed to 'well, gosh, maybe he wasn't actually conked on the head with a fire extinguisher, bit it's POSSIBLE he was so upset the next day that he had a stroke due to a blood clot and died'?

Sicknick did his job, and served his country in the military, and was a staunch supporter of Donald Trump. I salute his service both as a soldier and a police officer.

[Cow Poke]

.....

Not necessarily. I can be suspicious that some claim is false while you foist it as the truth, and it doesn't mean you are lying.

Well, if what I'm saying is actually true, then I'm NOT lying. We know for a fact that Sicknick was NOT bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher.

Sure, I left out a possibility. Reporters at the NYT may have made up the anonymous sources so they could claim that he was hit by a fire extinguisher, knowing that it would eventually become an important part of the case against Trump, even though he had an alibi.

But as I've been trying to point out, "maybe they lied" isn't quite the same as "they lied".

So, absent ANY evidence that Sicknick was hit by ANYTHING, you're still gonna hold out the FALSE reports were somehow not lies.

ALLEGEDLY. Remember, that information was from an anonymous source, and you don't trust anonymous sources.

I trust his Momma - she's not an anonymous source.

I, on the other hand, am willing to accept that there was no evidence of blunt force trauma, unless information comes out indicating otherwise.

Is there ANY CIRCUMSTANCE you can imagine in which, if there were the SLIGHTEST HINT that there was trauma, that Nancy and Schumer wouldn't be all over it?
That they wouldn't know? That they wouldn't work like the dickens to find out?

Would they? I'm not sure they think the issue is as important as you do.

You're probably right - Chuck and Nancy don't give flyin' flip about the truth as long as it doesn't destroy their narrative.

Right. But we don't know that they don't.

As I've said, maybe they lied.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

I'm beginning to suspect you don't have a very good relationship with the truth, and therefore, are willing to let others slide.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll be happy to be a character witness.

Glad to be of service.

We have no clue who the "anonymous sources" were. It's really beginning to look like they were totally made up.
We know that the story they reported is bogus. Void of truth. Never happened.
We know that, even after suspicion was cast on the "anonymous source" story, that it was still being presented as true.

That should cause any honest person great concern.

[rogue06]

Or they exist, but they're lying and don't want to be held accountable.

Or be forced to admit that it was nothing more than rumor and gossip that they were now disseminating as FACT

[Cow Poke]

Or be forced to admit that it was nothing more than rumor and gossip that they were now disseminating as FACT

Walter Kronkite is rolling over in his grave.