Fourth Capitol Hill Riot Police Officer Commits Suicide

T. Belman. Could it be that they were murdered because they were going to blow the lid on Jan 6?

By Stephen Green, PJ MEDIA

THE HILL reports Fourth police officer who responded to Jan. 6 attack dies by suicide

It only seems like yesterday that we learned that a third D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) who had responded to the January 6 riots had killed himself.

Because it was only yesterday that The Hill reported that officer “Gunther Hashida was found dead in his home” last week, according to an MPD email they received.

Once is happenstance, they say. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

So what to call the fourth time?

A fourth law enforcement officer who responded to the Capitol on Jan. 6 has died by suicide, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) confirmed to The Hill on Monday.

A department spokesman said Officer Kyle DeFreytag, who had been with the department since November 2016, was found dead on July 10. Police confirmed DeFreytag, 26, was among a host of MPD officers who were sent to the Capitol in response to the riot.

Good Lord.

Insanity Wrap’s first thought was to add a flip little remark like, “What did they have on Hillary?”

But we try to be better than that, at least on occasion. Four suicides would be one of those occasions.

The MPD has 3,800 officers, meaning that the force has had a suicide rate of just over 4 per 1,000 in just the last few months.

In 2019, the national suicide rate was about 0.14 per 1,000.

Even with 2020’s higher suicide rate (we couldn’t find final figures in time for today’s column), an MPD officer is about 25 times more likely to die by his own hand than a typical American.

The ratio skews even more toward the extreme when you consider that not nearly every one of the MPD’s 3,800 officers responded to the riot.

But who’s going to investigate? The same MPD that’s taken such poor care of its own officers? The FBI that may have enticed and entrapped protestors into becoming rioters?

If you need us, we’ll be in the darkest corner of the basement fashioning hats out of tinfoil.


An update and correction courtesy of a sharp commenter:

We apologize for the error and have brewed a fresh cup of coffee.


What Comes After QAnon?

As a rule, Insanity Wrap is so deeply uninterested in conspiracy theories that we rarely bother going on any of our infamous deep research dives into any conspiracy theory groups.

Honestly, we’re only vaguely aware of what QAnon is about, although we seem to remember there being something about a worldwide pedophile/sex-trafficking ring including every famous person you’ve ever heard of, up to and including Grover from Sesame Street.

We’re kidding about Grover. We think.

But then we read stories like this one about George Soros’ right-hand-man Howard Rubin:

Rubin, 66, a married, notorious Wall Street trader who is blamed for incurring $377million of losses at Merrill Lynch in 1987, is accused of paying women up to $5,000 in order to take part in BDSM sex.

Now several of the women who took part in the kinky sex sessions are suing the financier, claiming he abused them; ignoring safe words, going beyond the BDSM boundaries and agreements they set before sex, and physically hurt them.

But wait. It gets worse.

Another woman said she and Rubin had sex against her will claiming that while bound in his chamber he told her: ‘I’m going to rape you like I rape my daughter‘ before forcing her to have intercourse.

Emphasis added because ugh.

Rubin’s wife of 36 years, Mary Henry, filed for divorce… last month.

We’re calling BS that she hadn’t long known what kind of person her husband is.

In fact, as we learned with Jeffrey Epstein — who didn’t kill himself, BTW — everybody knew what kind of a person he was.

Everybody knows, and nobody talks.

Was QAnon right all along?

If you need us, we’ll be in the darkest corner of our basement sticking photos and notes and diagrams on a massive bulletin board.

August 4, 2021 | 1 Comment »

Leave a Reply

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. The 4 per 1000 wasn’t actually wrong because the time period mentioned was “a few months”. So if the trend ontinued for a year it could very well have been 4 per thousand.

    (There were 2 in just the past week.)