Ray Epps Story is a Good Indicator of Fake News Outlets and Real News Outlets

[Rexedgar]

I heard Ray Epps was recently seen entering the White House and left his phone in a cubby hole…………..

 

[OpportunityCost]

He's getting a pass huh? Your comments are nothing but a shill and proves you lied and your comments are nothing more than partisan hackery.

Ray Epps To Be Criminally Charged For Events On January 6, His Attorney Says

An attorney for Ray Epps, a man seen on video wearing a Trump hat during the January 6 riot, says that his client has been informed by federal law ...

www.allsides.com

"To reiterate, Fox did not falsely assert that Epps was a federal agent acting with a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Fox did not falsely assert that Epps was an informant for a federal agency. Instead, Fox falsely asserted that Epps was a federal agent who was encouraging and inciting others to engage in unlawful activities. And not just any unlawful activity, but rather, to engage in an attack on the United States Capitol and democracy itself."

Anyone can find the hole in that assertion. Epps is claiming in the suit that he isn't an FBI agent. I highly doubt he was an FBI agent, but working with them in some way is entirely possible and not changed by this statement or by intent to charge him in some way.

Epps had two years to get his story straight without ever being charged, maybe some discovery of the notice by the DOJ would prove informative.

 

[Callen]

People were most definitely charged for just being there and walking in when police were letting it happen.

Judge issues the first outright acquittal of a defendant charged over the Jan. 6 riot

A federal judge on Wednesday acquitted a New Mexico man of misdemeanor charges that he illegally entered the U.S. Capitol and engaged in disorderly conduct during last year's riot.

www.npr.org

Read your own link he was aquiited but the charge was he illegally entered the building . Epps never entered the building ...never

 

[Davin]

"To reiterate, Fox did not falsely assert that Epps was a federal agent acting with a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Fox did not falsely assert that Epps was an informant for a federal agency. Instead, Fox falsely asserted that Epps was a federal agent who was encouraging and inciting others to engage in unlawful activities. And not just any unlawful activity, but rather, to engage in an attack on the United States Capitol and democracy itself."

Anyone can find the hole in that assertion. Epps is claiming in the suit that he isn't an FBI agent. I highly doubt he was an FBI agent, but working with them in some way is entirely possible and not changed by this statement or by intent to charge him in some way.

Epps had two years to get his story straight without ever being charged, maybe some discovery of the notice by the DOJ would prove informative.

Doesn't change anything I've said. Trump supporters are liars and support criminal activity. He's going to be charged and Trump supporters are liars.

 

[Fishking]

So your claim is false again as they had to gatyher evidence and over the years they got it through tesitmony of the 1/6 group. You lied. Pathetic but then you Trump supporters have proven you just continue to lie about the situation. The only way for a Trump supporter to Make America Great Again is by dying, being deported or jailed.

That's not false. That's fact. None of your foot stomping will make you more correct.

 

[soap box]

People that were there with him on that day were calling him a fed for a reason. He was specifically, and repeatedly, calling for people to break into the Capitol. Then he was left to walk, while people that were basically just in the vicinity were charged for much less than his specific calls of incitement. It's not unreasonable to assume something fishy here, and the government's position of denying everything, even in congressional hearings, didn't do anything to dispel it.

People were most definitely charged for just being there and walking in when police were letting it happen.

Judge issues the first outright acquittal of a defendant charged over the Jan. 6 riot

A federal judge on Wednesday acquitted a New Mexico man of misdemeanor charges that he illegally entered the U.S. Capitol and engaged in disorderly conduct during last year's riot.

www.npr.org

"The judge said Martin appeared to be a "silent observer of the actions of others."

" McFadden didn't find any evidence that Martin intended to disrupt Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's electoral victory."

So Martin was acquitted, and Epps wasn't charged. What were we supposed to see in the article you posted?

 

[Fishking]

Read your own link he was aquiited but the charge was he illegally entered the building . Epps never entered the building ...never

No shit...but he was charged. Look above your head, there's that point that flew over.

 

[Davin]

That's not false. That's fact. None of your foot stomping will make you more correct.

Of course it's false, you are lying at this point.

 

[Fishking]

"The judge said Martin appeared to be a "silent observer of the actions of others."

" McFadden didn't find any evidence that Martin intended to disrupt Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's electoral victory."

So Martin was acquitted, and Epps wasn't charged. What were we supposed to see in the article you posted?

That part. What's confusing?

 

[Fishking]

Of course it's false, you are lying at this point.

That fact that your il-informed isn't my issue. The facts on Epps has been established for a long time now. There's literally multiple videos out there of him directly inciting the crowd to commit crimes. It's been known for nearly as long as Jan 6 has happened.

 

[Binary_Digit]

That's literally the point. He wasn't charged for years, while others had the hammer brought down on them for less.

Right. The FBI had a secret plant to stir up violence at the Capitol, yet they blew his cover by forgetting to charge him with a crime, and that allowed internet geniuses to come along and figger it all out. You really believe that shit?

 

[Davin]

That fact that your il-informed isn't my issue. The facts on Epps has been established for a long time now. There's literally multiple videos out there of him directly inciting the crowd to commit crimes. It's been known for nearly as long as Jan 6 has happened.

Yes, he isn't an FBI agent as folks like you have suggested. He's now being charged. You lied.

 

[Fishking]

Why the **** are leftists so intent on defending the DOJ for letting Epps walk for so damn long? They had blood lust for literally everyone that was even remotely related to anything Jan 6 for years and now they are acting like him walking wasn't weird. Insanity and an unthinking mind is prevalent on the left. They just regurgitate what the media has told them to, even if it contradicts everything they've been doing for years.

 

[Fishking]

Right. The FBI had a secret plant to stir up violence at the Capitol, yet they blew his cover by forgetting to charge him with a crime, and that allowed internet geniuses to come along and figger it all out. You really believe that shit?

I don't believe it but it's not unreasonable to assume. You may be wholly ignorant of the FBI's decades-long practice of creating criminals but that's a you issue, not a me issue.

How the FBI Created a Terrorist

In 2012, Sami Osmakac was 25 years old, broke and struggling with mental illness. His family wanted to get him help. The FBI wanted him to plot a terrorist attack.

theintercept.com

 

[watsup]

Lol...there's nothing to explain about him getting a pass for direct incitement.

I see. So you’re not interested in serious discussion, only in sealioning. No one is surprised.

 

[Fishking]

I see. So you’re not interested in serious discussion, only in sealioning. No one is surprised.

I made a statement of fact. That's not a debate point.

 

[soap box]

That part. What's confusing?

Epps wasn't charged, Martin didn't do much either , and both men walked free.

I would ask you to consider for a moment if it would be wrong for the FBI to throw everyone in jail without due process. Maybe this case of Martin compared to Epps shows that due process did indeed occur, since lesser offenders weren't convicted while a thousand other participants were.

 

[Rexedgar]

I don't believe it but it's not unreasonable to assume. You may be wholly ignorant of the FBI's decades-long practice of creating criminals but that's a you issue, not a me issue.

How the FBI Created a Terrorist

In 2012, Sami Osmakac was 25 years old, broke and struggling with mental illness. His family wanted to get him help. The FBI wanted him to plot a terrorist attack.

theintercept.com

I stopped there and shook my head. How many posts have you been pushing a narrative that you don’t believe?

I’m not shocked, just surprised you rolled over so quick……….

 

[soap box]

@Fishking

What motive did they have to stage a riot? ( Whoever it is , that you think sent Epps, whoever that is, why did they want a riot on J6?

 

[Fishking]

Epps wasn't charged, Martin didn't do much either , and both men walked free.

No...one was charged and the other was just left to walk. That's a big difference that you're missing.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Why the **** are leftists so intent on defending the DOJ for letting Epps walk for so damn long? They had blood lust for literally everyone that was even remotely related to anything Jan 6 for years and now they are acting like him walking wasn't weird. Insanity and an unthinking mind is prevalent on the left. They just regurgitate what the media has told them to, even if it contradicts everything they've been doing for years.

As you've already been made aware, Ray Epps did not attack police, destroy property, or enter the Capitol building. So it stands to reason he would be a lower priority than hundreds of others. It's not weird at all.

No, what's weird is that the DOJ handled Trump with kitten mittens for over a year while asking for the classified documents he stole from the country. And what's weird is that the DOJ focused on the street-level 1/6 criminals while ignoring Trump and his co-conspirators until the 1/6 committee did their homework for them and basically gave them a mandate to go after the leadership.

 

[Fishking]

I stopped there and shook my head. How many posts have you been pushing a narrative that you don’t believe?

I’m not shocked, just surprised you rolled over so quick……….

I didn't push anything. I stated facts. Holy shit.

 

[Fishking]

As you've already been made aware, Ray Epps did not attack police, destroy property, or enter the Capitol building. So it stands to reason he would be a lower priority than hundreds of others. It's not weird at all.

No, he just called for it, specifically and repeatedly.

 

[trouble13]

He did not harm a law enforcement person, he did not destroy property, he did not enter the Capitol building. Name one other person who was charged that did none of those things. It's funny how the right has decided that his exercising his first amendment right to say really stupid things is a crime.

According to the Republican on the committee, there were others that did the same things Epps did but we're charged. They named some of the people charged.

I'm not saying Epps is or is not a gov asset, but it is peculiar that he has not been charged. I don't think its unreasonable for people to be suspicious.

For the record most of the people charge neither harmed any law enforcement personnel or destroyed any gov owned property. That is not the standard used to determine if charges were brought against someone or not. You have been misinformed if you think that was the litmus test.

 

[soap box]

No...one was charged and the other was just left to walk. That's a big difference that you're missing.

No, that's no difference to the ones who are incarcerated serving time . They got convicted and Martin did not.

Your point in posting that was to provide information to support your claim that so many other people at the capitol were charged for less than what Epps did and yet the article you posted doesnt mention Epps so we are left with your interpretation that either both or neither should be charged. That article doesn't support that claim.

The really important thing
I asked you to consider was the question of whether or not their situations are an example of due process where lesser offenders are not condemned by association. That's the real issue in the claim you made.