“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
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.
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)
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
• 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.