TheGaggle
News • Politics • Culture
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 1817: Team Trump And Zelensky--Is There A Way Back From The Rift?

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss the growing rift between President Trump and his team and Ukraine President Zelensky, and speculate as to whether the split is irreversible.

01:35:50
February 19, 2025
TG 1816: Trump Excoriates Zelensky, Talks Nice About Russia

George Szamuely discusses the latest diplomatic developments involving the United States, Russia and Ukraine, and tris to make sense of Trump's fury at President Zelensky.

00:49:05
February 19, 2025
TG 1815: Trump & Nixon: The Gaggle Talks To Geoff Shepard

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle talked to former Nixon aide Geoff Shepard and compared the Nixon and Trump presidencies, wondering what either man would think of the other.

00:55:11
February 20, 2025
Monday Night At The Movies

Please choose which one of the following 8 movies you would like to have screened next Monday, Feb. 24. The theme is "cinema and business."

Please continue to vote after Feb. 24, so that we can determine the runner-up. The runner-up will be screened on March 3.

The Gaggle Book Club

Each week, the Gaggle Book Club recommends a book for Gagglers to read and—most important—uploads a pdf version of it.

Our practice is that we do not vouch for the reliability or accuracy of any book we recommend. Still less, do we necessarily agree with a recommended book's central arguments. However, any book we recommend will be of undoubted interest and intellectual importance.

In the spirit of symbiosis, and in light of this week's conversation with former Nixon aide Geoff Shepard, today's book club selection is Jeffrey E. Garten's "Three Days at Camp David: How a Secret Meeting in 1971 Transformed the Global Economy." Published in 2021, Garten's book delves into the pivotal moment when President Richard Nixon decided to sever the U.S. dollar's tie to gold, thereby ending the Bretton Woods system set up in 1944.

In the aftermath of World War II, the Bretton Woods Agreement established a global monetary system: currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar, and the U.S. dollar was ...

Jeffrey_E._Garten_-_Three_Days_at_Camp_David__How_a_Secret_Meeting_in_1971_Transformed_the_Global_Economy_(2021,_Harper)_-_libgen.li.pdf
14 hours ago

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/21/federal-judge-ruling-blocks-trump-administration-dei-funding-00205585

Talk about total b*l sht. Insane that a judge appointed by Biden can block Trumps EOs.

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