Connect with us

Nation

Brian Sicknick suffered 2 strokes, died of natural causes, says chief medical examiner

Published

on

brian sicknick officer

Washington, D.C.’s chief medical examiner has ruled that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick sustained two strokes and died of natural causes one day after he engaged against rioters at the January 6 Capitol attack, The Washington Post reported Monday afternoon.

Monday’s ruling will probably make it challenging for prosecutors to file homicide charges in Sicknick’s death. A pair of men are accused of assaulting Sicknick by employing a powerful chemical spray meant for bears at him during the riot and have been charged with assaulting the 42-year-old officer with a deadly weapon, but the two haven’t been charged with homicide.

RELATED: BREAKING: Two men charged with assaulting Capitol Police officer Sicknick

Francisco Diaz, the medical examiner, told The Post in an interview that the autopsy discovered no evidence Sicknick experienced an allergic reaction to chemical irritants, which Diaz said would have resulted in Sicknick’s throat quickly seizing. No evidence of internal or external injuries was found, the medical examiner also reportedly said.

Diaz, according to The Post, noted that Sicknick, who had been with Capitol Police since 2008, was among the hundreds of officers who confronted the violent mob at the U.S. Capitol and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

After returning to his office during the riot, Sicknick collapsed and then died about eight hours later on January 7.

RELATED: Capitol police confirm death of officer following Wednesday’s violent attack

The medical examiner, according to The Post, said he could not comment on whether Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition, citing privacy laws.

The officer laid in honor under the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in early February. Sicknick was then buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @DouglasPBraff.

Continue Reading

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending