TheGaggle
Politics • Culture • News
Our community is made up of those who value the freedom of speech, the right to debate and the promise of open, honest conversations.

We don't agree on everything but we never silence our followers and value every opinion on our channel.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Bizarre Article Even By "New York Times"'s Bizarre Standards

It's hard to know what's more bizarre: A police officer demanding to see the House minority leader in order to urge him to stop permitting members of his caucus from putting out accounts of the events of Jan. 6 that this officer doesn't like? Or the "New York Times"'s taking these arrogant requests from a police officer seriously?

Apparently, the police officer featured in the "Times" article is under the impression that the leader of a legislative caucus has powers to command his members what to do and what not to do. He can order them to say what he wants them to say and he can stop them from saying what he doesn't want them to say. The police officer and, apparently, the "Times" is unaware that a caucus leader has powers to whip votes, but he has no power to stop elected legislators from expressing their views.

According to the "New York Times"'s solemn report, Officer Fanone

had a clear request at the ready: for the minority leader to publicly denounce the lies Republican lawmakers have been telling about the deadly attack. He wanted Mr. McCarthy to push them to stop downplaying the storming of the building, blaming left-wing extremists for an assault carried out by former President Donald J. Trump’s right-wing supporters and spreading the baseless conspiracy theory that the F.B.I. secretly planned it.

Leave aside the "Times"'s tendentious "reporting"--"lies," "deadly attack," "storming of the building," "assault," "right-wing supporters," "baseless conspiracy theory"--the request is ridiculous on its face. How is Leader Kevin McCarthy responsible for the views of the members of his caucus? And why would the "New York Times," and presumably Officer Fanone, think that McCarthy--whatever his own personal view of Trump or of the events of Jan. 6--would accept the "Times" and Officer Fantone's rendering of what happened on Jan. 6 as remotely accurate?

Imagine how the "New York Times" would cover an NYPD police officer's relentless pursuit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in order to get her to denounce the members of her caucus who were urging the defunding of the police! Chances are that the FBI would soon be paying the NYPD officer a "visit"--and the "Times" would doubtless be purring with approval, while denouncing the officer as mentally unstable and as a "stalker."

The "Times" goes on in its inimitable way:

Officer Fanone’s effort comes as some far-right House Republicans have spread misinformation about the riot, sought to portray it as a mostly peaceful event and voted against honoring police officers who responded.

One House Republican accused a U.S. Capitol Police officer of “lying in wait” to carry out an “execution” of a rioter. And 21 House Republicans voted last week against a bill to award Congressional Gold Medals to the officers who defended the Capitol Jan. 6.

“I asked him to denounce the 21 House Republicans that voted against the Gold Medal bill, recognizing my co-workers and colleagues that fought to secure the Capitol on Jan. 6,” Officer Fanone said.

A number of obvious questions arise. First, from what we know about the events of Jan. 6, the police scarcely acquitted themselves in glory. It was one of the biggest policing fiascoes in modern times. There should be no medal awards whatsoever. To the contrary: wide-scale dismissals were clearly in order.

Second, given the manifest police incompetence on display on Jan. 6, this police officer would probably be more usefully employed in training and in improving his policing skills than in worrying about how a party leader was handling his caucus.

Third, the police officer makes no mention of the killing of Ashi Babbitt. The "Times" also makes no mention of her other than the sneering reference to a Republican congressman's talking about the "execution" of a "rioter." This is par for the course for much of the "liberal" media: Ashli Babbitt was a "rioter" who got her just desserts. However, the police officer should be worried about the performance of his fellow-police officers that day. Officer Fanone should be making the effort to address the serious questions that have been raised about the killing of Ashli Babbitt.

Who killed Ashli Babbitt? Why is that officer's name being withheld? Why did he kill her? He did not appear to be in any immediate danger from a petite, unarmed woman. Various Internet sites, as well as the lawyer representing the Babbitt family, have identified the alleged perpetrator as someone who a few years ago had left a loaded handgun in a public restroom in the Capitol. Is that the reason why his name is being withheld? Because the Capitol police would be on the hook for a wrongful-death suit, given that it had manifestly failed in its duty to dismiss an employee who had committed a transgression of this magnitude?

Clearly, these are the sorts of issues that Officer Fanone, still an active-duty cop, should be more appropriately concerned with, not what goes on in Kevin McCarthy's caucus. But then of course Fanone would then not get slobbering coverage in the "New York Times."

The article ends with a flourish stunning for its lack of self-awareness. According to the "Times," Fanone was troubled that the

Republican strategy appeared to be to try to make the public forget about the attack as the party looked to retake the House in next year’s midterm elections.

“When you’re that obsessed with gaining power that you’re wiling to trample over a bunch of police officers, that’s sickening,” he said in an interview.

Perish the thought that the Democrats and their unofficial spokesman," the "New York Times," might be using the events of Jan. 6 to win elections and hold onto power! Of course not. They talk all day and every day about Jan. 6 only because they want to get to the bottom of what happened that day even as they make sure never to ask any key questions such as: What did the FBI know and when did they know it? How deeply was the FBI involved in any of the plans for instigating violence? And, of course, who killed Ashli Babbitt, and why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/us/kevin-mccarthy-capitol-riot-officer.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
TG 1893: Has Trump Finally Had It With Bibi?

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's increasingly desperate attempts to undermine the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, and wonder whether President Trump has finally reached the conclusion that the United States really doesn't much need Israel for anything.

01:10:54
TG 1892: Countdown To Second Russia-Ukraine Meeting In Istanbul Begins

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle look ahead to the next round of negotiations set to take place in Istanbul on June 2, and note that the usual suspects are up to their usual tricks seeking to sabotage any prospects of success.

00:58:16
TG 1891: German Chancellor Merz Threatens Russia, Promises To Build Missile Factories In Ukraine

George Szamuely discusses the growing recklessness of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who has just promised that Germany will build factories in Ukraine that will produce missiles with ranges up to 2,500 kilometers--missiles, in other words, that could easily hit Moscow.

00:27:38

Though Donald Trump and Elon Musk may have thoroughly embarrassed South Africa's Marxist leadership with their little oval office stunt the other day and made more of the world aware of yet another unfolding genocide in the world, when it comes to actually endorsing real solutions to the problem, they are proving to be woefully inadequate.

placeholder
10 hours ago
Portugal And Drugs

During today's Live Stream, the subject of Portugal's supposed success in addressing its drug problem through decriminalization came up. I promised to post a couple of skeptical works on the matter. Here they are. There are more of course, but this is a start.

https://archive.ph/sK93w

portugal_fact_sheet_8-25-10.pdf
January 21, 2023
More Leftie Than Thou
"Jacobin" Magazine Celebrates A Strike Against Ol' Blue Eyes

Here at "The Gaggle" we have very little time for the "more Leftie than thou" school of thought--that's the approach to life according to which the only thing that matters is whether you take the right position on every issue under the sun from Abortion to Zelensky. No one in the world meets the exacting standards of this school of thought; any Leftie leader anywhere is always selling out to the bankers and the capitalists. The perfect exemplar of this is the unreadable Jacobin magazine. 

The other day I came across this article from 2021. It's a celebration of trade union power. And not simply trade union power, but the use of trade union power to secure political goals. Of course (and this is always the case with the "more Leftie than thou" crowd), this glorious, never-to-be-forgotten moment on the history of organized labor took place many years ago--in the summer of 1974 to be exact. Yes, almost half a century has gone by since that thrilling moment when the working-class movement of Australia mobilized and prepared to seize the means of production, distribution and exchange. 

Well, not quite. Organized labor went into action against...Ol' Blue Eyes, the Chairman of the Board, the Voice; yes, Frank Sinatra. Why? What had Sinatra done? Sinatra was certainly very rich, and he owned a variety of properties and businesses. But if the Australian trade union movement were, understandably, searching for the bright, incandescent spark that would finally awaken the working class from its slumber there were surely richer, greedier, more dishonest, more decadent, above all more Australian individuals it could have discovered. Australia was never short of them. Rupert Murdoch immediately springs to mind. Why Sinatra?

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals