Media Lies Exposed: Officer Sicknick and the False ‘Insurrection’ Narrative

Yesterday’s final report by Washington, DC’s chief medical examiner that Capitol Hill Police Officer Brian Sicknick did not die from being beaten with a fire extinguisher – a claim echoed throughout the mainstream media – but rather died from “natural causes” the day after the January 6th melee at the Capitol has destroyed the MSM narrative that an armed and deadly insurrection had taken place. Will the media apologize for lying repeatedly for months? Will they be held to account for their lies? What is truth? On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

35 thoughts on “Media Lies Exposed: Officer Sicknick and the False ‘Insurrection’ Narrative”

  1. OK. So how does this one thing makes the entire “insurrection narrative” false? The people who brought bear spray, planted bombs, smeared shit, hunted Pelosi, demanded Pence be hanged, and on and on, stating their intentions openly on social media, were just out for good wholesome fun? If you’re going to put something in scare quotes, how about “stolen election”?

    1. There was no armed insurrection, It was al lies and nonsense. The people who died were all Trump supporters except this officer. The armed insurrection was Antifa and BLM.

      1. You said there was no armed insurrection and then you said there was an armed insurrection.

        1. i was talking about January 6th. The real armed insurrection is Antifa and BLM. Of course you knew that.

          1. No John, I didn’t. I thought you were talking about the nonsense that Antifa and BLM were really responsible for the Jan 6th riots. As if those in their Trump costumes were really Antifa and BLM like the Trump loyalists were screaming. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.

          2. I don’t often post here, but assuming the last 4 digits of John’s handle indicate his birth year, he’s never disappointed me with providing takes I would expect from a boomer Fox News watcher

    2. While it’s technically correct (insurrection is “a rising of individuals to prevent the execution of law by force of arms”), using that particular word gives far too much credit to the rioters, falsely portraying events as if there was ever any chance they were going to thwart the execution of the law.

      Calling that idiotic Trump publicity stunt that got out of control an “insurrection” is like calling the coffin-bearing gurney getting away from the hearse driver and rolling down the street a “resurrection.”

      1. The purpose of the “peaceful”, “fun” get together was to stop the count, the “steal”.

        They were encouraged to go there by the former President. The sight of them storming the place looked to me like a bunch of cockroaches crawling all over a kitchen cabinet.

      2. Thomas did you consider/investigate what would’ve happened if Pence were incapacitated?

        As there is a presidential line of succession, there could well have been a scenario where whomever would be in charge if Pence/Pelosi/etc. couldn’t certify the electoral votes it goes down the line where some other official (looking at you, Pompeo).

        Annoyingly, I’ve read different opinions on whether Pence or whomever would’ve replaced him could throw out votes from “questionable” states. If that happened one explainer I read says Congress would vote for president and VP.

        It was a long shot, but ultimately with enough chaos and casualties there apparently still was a way for Trump to have won.

        1. The states decide the disposition of their electoral votes. It seems unlikely that any attempt to “throw out votes from ‘questionable ‘ states” would have survived a court challenge.

          The only way Trump was going to remain in power once the votes were counted was an actual, physical coup, which would have required the support of a substantial faction of the military and which would have resulted in open civil war. A riot by some supporters wasn’t ever going to get the job done.

    3. Bumbling and stupid, but the goal was clear. Stranger bumbling and stupidity has occurred, like the US invasion of the mideast.

      1. I think this depends on what you assume the purpose of these invasions is. Obviously they are never entirely about what the leaders say they are (if at all), but because there are multiple parties involved, each of them may have their own agenda, their own goal or goals. From that perspective (theirs), it’s impossible to know whether what happens overall is or is not a mistake. That being said, we can still call failure where we see it. If you think the goal is always some Michael Ledeen nihilism (pick up a country and smash it), then sure, it’s never a failure, never a mistake. But we know there’s more to it than that, we just don’t know all of what it is. To the extent that it makes life easier for Israel, for example, sure, these invasions have achieved that. It depends on whether you think Israel is always the point or merely the “bonus” from Washington’s point of view.

        1. From what is observed, the goal has been to destroy as many functional ME societies as is possible, and profitable. See something else ?

    4. “The people who brought bear spray, planted bombs, smeared shit, hunted Pelosi, demanded Pence be hanged, and on and on, stating their intentions openly on social media”

      Which parts were the corporate media’s self interested nonsense? Those things aren’t so far fetched as to make them unbelievable and certainly something “sad” people are capable of doing without being “bad” people.

      1. Even that shouldn’t be considered out of the realm of possibilities when so many different people with so many different agendas converge. Not saying the corporate media isn’t exaggerating and pushing hard for this to look worse than it is, just saying I’m not surprised any of those things happened.

      2. Someone is not very well informed, for someone accusing me of posting nonsense. Me, by the way, not wars.

  2. Feb 15, 2021 Capital Hill Cop Died of STROKE!! NOT FROM A FIRE EXTINGUISHER!

    “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,” the Times wrote.

    1. Strokes brought on by the vigor with which he suppressed the mob, and the shock of what was transpiring.

      No Capitol breach (insurrection) = No injuries or deaths.

      Cause and effect.

      1. Government loves setting up these events just as they perfected this in Afghanistan. This is a view from the scene and speaks for itself.


        The storming of the capital building was not a “failure of security” as multiple camera angles and videos show police letting protesters beyond the barricades and in some cases they march them right up to the front.

        1. The only way this was ‘set up’ would be the GOP plotting to constrain law enforcement or military response compared what would have been normally executed with that type of breach. Already some suspicious reports of someone telling Capitol officers to stand down are coming out of the woodwork.
          I sure hope they set up that independent commission to get to the bottom of it.

          1. Some of us don’t want to see this happen again. A commission is what this ‘little person’ wants because my gut says there was coordination at high levels… the REAL swamp, if you will

          2. This video would be a lot more effective if it wasn’t so ‘inside baseball’ where he showed faces and expected us to know right away whom they were. He also rattles off so many claims that I can’t know whether he’s peddling misinformation theories or provable facts without devoting days to investigate. But even then I knew enough about the Bush administration that I opposed the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

            Regardless, there’s a big difference between 9/11 and 1/6, namely one side was *directly* at risk of being harmed (or, if you like being cynical, losing their turn at the reins of power). That people were careless about the implications of a 9/11 investigation would be, regrettably, expected since mostly foreigners would bear the brunt.

            As 1/6 was a domestic situation with one side at risk and another side either dismissive or potentially involved, anything bipartisan would by its nature pit one side against the other

          3. I will give you a scientific fact. In the history of history fire has never melted steel beams five foot thick or ever brought down a steel frame structure. Only one chemical government owned can and it is called Thermite. Politicians lie and facts do not.

            September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century “What Really Happened”?

            New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.


          4. The problem with conspiracy theories is that there is a kernel of truth but the big picture is totally lost or ignored. All it took was for the steel beams to soften and then the tons of weight above them were enough to make them completely buckle. Here is a good video:


      2. While it does seem likely that the stress of the day might have been causally related to the strokes, I’ve seen no official medical conclusion to that effect. Have you, or are you just speculating?

        1. Some people have a predisposition to clotting, and damage to the blood vessels predisposes them to forming strokes. Pathologists usually look for DVTs in autopsies but I have no idea how extensive Sicknick was evaluated either before or during the autopsy. Fatal strokes can arise in small vessels which cannot practically be examined; if he had a DVT in, say, a leg vein the examiners might not have visualized it.
          Soft tissue trauma and venous stasis (being immobile such as being in hospital beds or airplanes) can cause it. I feel it is reasonable for the report to have stated that the violence from 1/6 was contributory even if not the main cause of his death

          1. Did the report state that the violence was contributory?

            If so, what was the stated basis for that claim?

            I’m not saying it wasn’t contributor — if nothing else, the overall increased stress of the day might have raised his blood pressure just enough to cause a stroke at a time when it otherwise wouldn’t have happened. Or it could just be coincidence. Those do happen.

          2. “The medical examiner noted Sicknick was among the officers who engaged the mob and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

            That’s from a WaPo article regarding the report, I can’t seem to find the actual copy. I actually have more than a passing interest in the field of forensics, and would want to talk shop with Dr. Diaz as to his reasoning. I already gave my theories above but medical examiners know trauma-related pathologic outcomes better than me

  3. So the man died of a series of strokes. Could it not be argued that the shock and vigor that he had to defend the Capitol building might have brought them on??
    No insurrection = No injuries to anyone (and certainly no deaths).

Comments are closed.