Then you should be eager to find out how many and what they were doing and saying but you aren’t, wonder why?
2 Likes
Yes, the video evidence should be enough to charge Epps with multiple crimes.
One possibility that I have not seen discussed is that Epps could have been working with a foreign government allied with the US. Epps could be telling the truth when he says that he was not employed by US authorities, and it would explain why he has never been prosecuted.
1 Like
Or he could just be, you know, lying.
2 Likes
Yes, Epps is free to lie with impunity since he would never face prosecution.
The J6 committee is not going to care if lied about being an informant. He may not even have been under oath. Even if a Republican congress later referred the case, the DOJ would never prosecute him.
1 Like
My favorite was the initial “debunking”, we talked to him and he said nuh uh, case closed. Then they went even further and had congress ask and he said, nuh uh, super debunked. Then they asked his co-conspirator and he said, no way. Triple debunked. This guy should start robbing banks.
1 Like
This clip is really damaging to his pleas of innocence.
I also do not believe the NYT recent report.
I trust Revolver more. Not a joke.
2 Likes
I would love to find out.
But I am not going to belabor it to give cover to Trump’s actions.
Which crimes?
Amazing to completely make something up.
Just asking questions is a powerful drug.
If you can’t get Epps for incitement you sure as hell can’t get Trump for it. Plus he is on camera on restricted capitol grounds.
2 Likes
Having his supporters march on the Capitol was part of Trump’s plan. It wasn’t a spontaneous thing like they are trying to make out.
Epps is among the people who were on restricted grounds, was peaceful and did not enter the Building. The majority of those people were not charged with a crime.
1 Like
Proof the majority wasn’t charged is where?
1 Like
In seeing that the vast majority of the charges are going to people who entered the Capitol building or committed violence.
A former MI6 operative was the source of the debunked Steele dossier that was used to justify FISA warrants. People connected with British intel attempted to frame leaders of the Trump campaign.
The possibility that elements in the UK government were involved with J6 is not unreasonable and should be investigated. A small change to the immortal words of the 51 former intel officials summarizes my suspicions:
. . . “we do not have evidence of” British “involvement – just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the” British “government played a significant role in this case . . .”
That is a 9/11 truther level of trying to make a connection.
This guy didn’t.
Why is Epps getting a pass?
2 Likes
Griffin also had a disorderly conduct charge against him. That charge got thrown out. But the part about entering the Capitol grounds was not.
Hey… if you want to argue that every single person who entered the Capitol grounds and not the building should be charged… be my guest… the thing is that Griffin is an outlier… not the norm.
Epps is in the majority of people who were not charged.
Which means, he wasn’t disorderly.
1 Like
The crime was charged though…, and since he also had the charge of entering the Capitol grounds the judge had to look at that also. The judge found that he wasn’t disorderly… but that he did knowingly trespass and entered a restricted area.
Once again… he is an outlier… not the norm. But if you think that everyone should be charged… go ahead.
He didn’t just enter the grounds, he was directing people and encouraging them enter the capitol, was seen talking to the guy who then removed barricades. That’s ok, we will get to the bottom of it after we annihilate dems in November.
2 Likes
At this point, we need a full investigation of operatives, domestic and foreign, who were involved with instigating problems at J6.
It is entirely possible that Epps was not paid by the FBI or other domestic police force but was working for a group in communication with the FBI. The group could be public or private, foreign or domestic.
US law restricts warrantless domestic spying by US intel agencies. British agencies can spy on Americans without those restrictions.
GCHQ is pouring money into efforts to gather personal information from mobile phones and apps, and has said it wants to be able to “exploit any phone, anywhere, any time”. . .
When GCHQ does supply the US with valuable intelligence, the agency boasts about it. In one review, GCHQ boasted that it had supplied “unique contributions” to the NSA during its investigation of the American citizen responsible for an attempted car bomb attack in Times Square, New York City, in 2010.
1 Like
