Within hours of Revolver’s analysis yesterday, an important new leak of unofficial information was circulated by The New York Times concerning Officer Brian Sicknick’s death.

On the one hand, the American public should be encouraged to receive long-awaited word on a high priority case in which it has has taken longer for the authorities to locate a suspect than it has for them to find and charge more than 300 criminal defendants. For reference, only 800 people entered the Capitol that day, and files have been opened on 540 suspects.  The set of “unidentified assailants” belongs to an ever-shrinking universe indeed.

On the other hand, as discussed below, these revelations raise as many questions as they provide answers. 

Assuming their veracity, however, these revelations fully vindicate MAGA of the original “Blood Libel” murder charge that antagonists have sought for seven straight weeks to pin on the tens of millions of supporters of the 45th President, which sins would pass down the generations and history books concerning the events of 1/6.

Bear Spray Theory Redux

According to the New York Times, the FBI has made “a significant breakthrough on the case,” pinpointing a single unidentified assailant as the prime suspect. That suspect was evidently seen on video spraying irritant at officers and discussing attacking the officers with the irritant beforehand.

It is unclear if the New York Times intended to definitively imply the irritant was “bear spray” when their own FBI sources said only “irritant” in the paragraph above and the authors speak generally of “irritants” below.



The credibility of the New York Times being so low, we cannot rule out the possibility that the article’s authors simply used “bear spray” and “irritant” interchangeably, leaving uninformed readers to assume that “bear spray” was the culprit.

We still don’t have the toxicology report, which by now even the Washington Post is acknowledging is “unusual after 7 weeks,” so the truth is anyone’s guess.

But while taking the time to inform readers about different classes of irritants, the New York Times casually leaves out that bear spray is actually significantly less dangerous and more humane than pepper spray, and is indeed the tamest class of nonlethal crowd control irritants. So at best, the New York Times was being sloppy and bad journalists. At worst, they were deliberately deceptive, hoped you didn’t notice, and just deceitful primed you with the image of a snarling “bear” to insinuate the most lethal, aggressive or primal intent. 

As discussed in a compelling account by a 30-year law enforcement veteran:

Recall that multiple hours after the protest had already concluded, Sicknick texted his own brother Ken that he was basically fine, other than being “pepper sprayed twice,” confirming he was safe and “in good shape.”

Nevertheless, the definitive culprit “bear spray” has spread mockingbird-like through CNNCBS, the DailyMail, the SunYahoo, high low and everywhere you go, until we’re back in Gaslight Groundhog’s Ground.

The Unidentified Assailant

It is unclear why the “unnamed assailant” is still unidentified. On the one hand, an eerily similar case concerning a protester spraying a large group of police officers and admitting it on video was also just unsealed yesterday.

But that defendant made his remarks on camera about the spraying event after that had taken place, rather than beforehand, as the New York Times’s sources allege.

If the FBI has not named the suspect because they simply cannot find him yet, it is mindboggling that they would continue to issue “WANTED” posters on bus stops and Twitter for random teenage girls, while the key Sicknick suspect remains outstanding. Just two days ago, the FBI posted:

How strange. The FBI has crowd-sourced intelligence to the general public for virtually every other suspect of the Capitol siege. Why not release the “breakthrough” video and have the public help locate this suspect too?

Anonymous Sources

While it may turn out to be true that the FBI has identified the irritant perpetrator, it is disconcerting to see the speed at which this story is becoming accepted as Gospel Truth by media faithful. Both the FBI and the Department of Justice have formally denied comment on the story. That means the entire claim rests on two anonymous law enforcement officials leaking unofficial rumors to the New York Times. That’s exactly how we got the MAGA Blood Libel “fire extinguisher” hoax to begin with


And now:

Hope it’s not the same two sources!

At any rate, if the New York Times report is to be trusted, it is a total vindication for the MAGA movement on the charge of brutal, bloody murder. It would render the official charge of the House Trial Memorandum, on whose basis President Trump was successfully impeached at the House of Representatives level, a total, thorough, shameful, dirty lie.

A gruesome murder by a bloodthirsty mob would be reduced to:

  • nonlethal charge (prosecutors pursuing assault rather than murder);
  • nonlethal weapon (irritant spray);
  • nonlethal intent (indiscriminate release at large group of officers);
  • nonlethal incident (victim in good shape multiple hours after); 
  • Turned somehow lethal by extremely unusual, highly atypical medical complications. 

It is one more reminder that the Official Narrative about 1/6 cannot be allowed to become sacred before it can become challenged. We are fortunate to have busted the New York Times’s MAGA Blood Libel lie so early in the process. Had it taken months or years to go unchecked, revisiting the issue would have had to painfully open long-sutured public and personal wounds.

In the following installment, our investigation will pursue lingering questions about the curious role of the FBI in separate aspects of the 1/6 story, such as how the “armed insurrectionists” became “armed.”

One thought on “Capitol Mystery: New Evidence Likely Clears MAGA of “Murder” Charge”
  1. … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here to that Topic: jnews.us/capitol-mystery-new-evidence-likely-clears-maga-of-murder-charge/ […]

Comments are closed.