“Investigators have determined that initial reports suggesting Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher aren't true, CNN previously reported.” cnn.com/2021/02/10/pol…
Those initial reports were, of course, also attributed to multiple anonymous law enforcement officials. nytimes.com/2021/01/07/adm…
It’s something a Capitol Police briefing on the events of Jan 6th would do a lot to clarify, because a reporter could ask a briefer on the record what the cause of death was, or whether there was a medical examiner’s report, how they decided to release the body for burial, etc
Just knowing basic facts about what happened during this incredibly important event from police officials speaking on the record would be nice. If they won’t brief, maybe they could be called to testify at the trial, or a public House hearing, or something.
A nuance that I fear some are missing here is that the attribution for the initial fire extinguisher claim was “two law enforcement officials,” it was denied by “investigators,” and the current claim about bear spray comes from “a US official briefed on the probe.”
Our sourcing is not getting any better after a month. In fact, it’s getting a little worse, and there still has been no official public briefing by Capitol Police.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with southpaw

southpaw Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nycsouthpaw

9 Feb
Sounds like the organizing resolution is going to pass overwhelmingly. I think I’ve only heard two no votes so far (Cruz and Hawley, big surprise).
Ron Johnson is also a no.
More no votes: Lee, Marshall, Paul, Rubio, Scott (FL), Scott (SC), Tuberville

Up to 10, I think.
Read 5 tweets
8 Feb
Gonna try this thread again; my first one was a mess.

The district court issued two orders today swatting away Ghislaine Maxwell's efforts to keep portions of her deposition testimony under seal:

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
The first order says that the court took into account Maxwell's and others' reliance on the protective order in the case when it ordered those materials unsealed.
The first order notes that the court of appeals distinguished btw testimony about 'consensual sexual activity with adults" (kept sealed) and about "purportedly non-sexual massages" (ordered disclosed); the judge says she's following that rubric for the depo.
Read 5 tweets
5 Feb
How much do 12 consecutive hours of airtime on OAN cost to purchase?
Could someone crowdfund it and make them run West Wing reruns for the rest of February?
You gotta hear the narration to get the full effect.
Read 4 tweets
4 Feb
11 yes votes from the GOP so far on stripping Greene’s committee assignments
So it’s going to pass and be more bipartisan than the most bipartisan impeachment in history.
The 11 Rs:

Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1)
Carlos Giménez (FL-26)
Chris Jacobs (NY-27)
John Katko (NY-24)*
Young Kim (CA-39)
Adam Kinzinger (IL-16)*
Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11)
Maria Salazar (FL-27)
Chris Smith (NJ-4)
Fred Upton (MI-6)*
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)

*voted for impeachment
Read 4 tweets
3 Feb
1 - all income measures and especially the ones Congress uses are too backward looking to know who’s lost income and is now in need

2 - the threshold is abbbbsurdly low

3 - it’s solving a problem that’s not a problem; a little extra cash to everyone would help the economy
4 - if you absolutely must solve the non-problem of a teensy bit too much income, it’s so easy to do it on the back end with our extremely well-develop policy tool of *drumroll* income taxes
Read 4 tweets
28 Jan
The NYT editorial board has chosen a truly absurd list for making its anti-EO point.
Let’s take it one by one:

• The Paris agreement is a subsidiary agreement of a treaty the Senate ratified in 1992, and its emissions targets are nonbinding. It would likely need an accompanying law to make significant change. But that’s no impediment to signing it.
• The Muslim ban was an EO exercising presidential discretion under the INA. Why would revoking require new legislation? It doesn’t.
• Keystone XL’s permit similarly was granted by executive action, exercising discretion given to the executive branch by an existing law.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!