Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Ray Epps Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Yes, riled up a crowd by telling them to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". Such provocative language!
    Yeah, too bad most of them also listened to the rest of his speech, along with the other speeches given.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

      I'd be willing to change my mind about Epps if evidence showed up that he was just an idiot and the FBI (for some unknown reason) decided to forgive him. The problem I see is that there is scant-to-no evidence online that this guy has ever earned a living doing anything. He apparently owned a small ranch but didn't run it as a business. How did he purchase this $250,000 ranch? One article said he worked as a "contractor" in Nevada, but there is no evidence he ever held a contractor's license. Epps claims he earned a living renting out his barn for wedding parties. I can't imagine one could retire early and tour the country (which is what Epps told the NYT) from hosting weddings in a barn.

      So, adding his lack of a paper trail and his treatment by the FBI, my conclusion is that he worked for them. That's how he made his living, that's how he bought his ranch. His assignment was to go online and become a MAGA so he could blend in on J6, but he didn't blend in well at all.
      The above is loaded conjecture without evidence based on belief. Are you really willing to accept Epps as not an informant based on an intelligence test?

      You are neglecting the fact that many including anti-establishment folk do business under the radar without records. My father did very very well selling used cars and airplanes out of his home without keeping any records. My father never had a license for anything other then driving a car and flying an airplane. Like my father Epps likely simply lies as to where his business income comes from.

      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Only for those determined to see it that way. It's a lot like the 5A. You might assume that the person who pleads the Fifth is guilty but there are are many different reasons for remaining silent that don't mean you're guilty. Or like I mentioned in another thread, police are instructed to NOT apologize after a shooting if an innocent by-stander gets hit. You may conclude that the cops are heartless and uncaring but they are simply following instructions because their remarks could easily be taken as admitting culpability and opening them up to very expensive law suits.

        So by refusing to answer she did nothing whatsoever but follow proper procedure as she and everyone else in that agency has been instructed to do. Knowing that, if you choose to read more into it than that, any conclusion you reach is simply not supported by the facts.
        No one's doubting she followed FBI procedure to not answer the question. What's shaky about your premise is comparing to pleading the 5th. Can you think of any reason, even just in theory, that would better serve the FBI to not answer the question other than the fact they did in fact have "informants" or operatives on the ground that day?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

          The above is loaded conjecture without evidence based on belief. Are you really willing to accept Epps as not an informant based on an intelligence test?

          You are neglecting the fact that many including anti-establishment folk do business under the radar without records. My father did very very well selling used cars and airplanes out of his home without keeping any records. My father never had a license for anything other then driving a car and flying an airplane. Like my father Epps likely simply lies as to where his business income comes from.
          Why are you circling around back to my first post in this thread? We already went well beyond that, and my last post to you (#46) you never answered.

          At any rate, I did some deeper digging and found he had advertised his wedding business, just not very well seeing as it was rather hard to find. It only changes my opinion from convinced to highly suspicious. There are still many unanswered questions and doubtful facts surrounding his claims.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Stoic View Post
            And being there was not illegal. Moving past the original locations of the barricades was illegal, but most people were not arrested just for that.
            Turns out Epps was in restricted area, even without going past the barricade.


            So did Trump. But it wasn't illegal, assuming Epps didn't incite them to riot once they got there.
            Is Trump on video the night before advocating going into the Capitol? Was Trump at the barricade?


            I'd like to know what the Gateway Pundit found when they followed up on Samsel's claims.

            What did the doctors have to say?
            I'd have to look at that, but given Samsel beating by the police, he would likely be more agreeable to what he's being asked while detained.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              Epps fits the statute exactly. Never arrested.
              Hundreds not arrested nor charged with crimes Jan. 6 such as entering the Capital, committing violent crimes, nor destroying property. Using your logic all are suspect of being FBI informants.



              He matches the statute exactly, yet he was not arrested. Others were arrested who failed to match the statue. Preferential treatment demands an explanation, and you have not provided any explanation for that. I have.
              You have presented your explanation, but not answered my response that at least hundreds of rioters and demonstrators and did not get arrested or charged. Like Epps they did not enter the Capital, destroy property or assault anyone.

              Source: https://time.com/6133336/jan-6-capitol-riot-arrests-sentences/



              More than 840 people have been arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, with charges ranging from obstruction of an official proceeding to assault. But 17 months after the attempted insurrection, a significant number of rioters are still awaiting their sentencing.

              © Copyright Original Source

              [/quote]
              Source: https://time.com/6133336/jan-6-capitol-riot-arrests-sentences/



              True.

              Only around a quarter of those arrested—185 individuals—have received criminal sentences, while the rest are waiting for their trials or haven’t yet reached plea agreements. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 80 defendants were sentenced to periods of incarceration, with longer prison terms for those who engaged in violence or threats. So far, the median prison sentence for the Jan. 6 rioters is 45 days. An additional 57 rioters have been sentenced to periods of home detention, while most sentences have included fines, community service and probation for low-level offenses like illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol, which is a misdemeanor.
              True.

              Hundreds of additional cases are expected to be adjudicated in the coming months, with a number of sentencing hearings already on the calendar this fall.

              © Copyright Original Source



              True

              That article is more than 5 months older than the article I provided, which puts the number of those charged in connection with the "insurrection" at 955 as of 11-22-22. That number includes many charged with curfew violations.

              Source: https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-numbers-120024334.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall



              Jie Jenny Zou, Erin B. Logan
              January 5, 2022·5 min read
              In this article: It’s been a year since the world watched angry Donald Trump supporters, some armed with Molotov cocktails and dressed in tactical gear, storm the nation’s Capitol and violently clash with police. Spurred on by then-President Trump, rioters had traveled from far and wide to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.

              Hundreds involved in the siege have been arrested, but many remain at large as officials piece together what happened on Jan. 6, 2021.

              The day began with a rally to bolster Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential race was stolen from him. Before Congress certified election results, thousands of Trump supporters gathered on the National Mall, just south of the White House, and listened for hours as some of Trump’s most prominent defenders, including his personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, promoted the falsehood.

              Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press.

              © Copyright Original Source



              That article is even older.



              The extra curfew violators? Perhaps so. I seriously doubt any of them were caught on video inciting an insurrection, as Epps did.
              True, except you have not determined by reference who was arrested and charged versus not charged and arrested based on video coverage. The video coverage covered thousands in the riot



              The preponderance of posts I've submitted to this thread and the links they include.
              The preponderance of posts you posted are very repetitive, and only present hypothetical claims concerning his business matters, and whether he was arrested or not. Noting here of actual evidence of being an FBI informant.



              He may have, although he claims his occupation was renting his barn for weddings. Although I have found online evidence of that, this was a relatively recent endeavor of his and it does not inspire a sufficient income compared to his assets.
              I addressed this in a previous post. This is grounds for the IRS to investigate him, but not evidence for being a FBI informant.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-02-2022, 04:53 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                Hundreds not arrested nor charged with crimes Jan. 6 such as entering the Capital, committing violent crimes, nor destroying property. Using your logic all are suspect of being FBI informants.
                I'll bet you that not a single person who committed a violent crime was interviewed by the FBI and then sent home. And I don't believe there are "hundreds" who fit your category.

                You have presented your explanation, but not answered my response that at least hundreds of rioters and demonstrators and did not get arrested or charged. Like Epps they did not enter the Capital, destroy property or assault anyone.
                Epps entered a restricted area. But worse, he was caught on video encouraging insurrection.


                True.

                True

                True, except you have not determined by reference who was arrested and charged versus not charged and arrested based on video coverage. The video coverage covered thousands in the riot
                And neither have you. You've cited Time and Yahoo for your data, but where did they get their data? They could be estimates, or pulling numbers out of thin air (for all I know).

                The preponderance of posts you posted are very repetitive, and only present hypothetical claims concerning his business matters, and whether he was arrested or not. Noting here of actual evidence of being an FBI informant.

                I addressed this in a previous post. This is grounds for the IRS to investigate him, but not evidence for being a FBI informant.
                Fair enough.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  Turns out Epps was in restricted area, even without going past the barricade.
                  That's not what I've read.

                  Raechel Genco was seen on video standing just feet away from Epps on Jan. 6 as he whispered into the ear of her boyfriend, Ryan Samsel, who promptly led a mob that stormed a police barricade. But unlike Samsel, the 38-year-old Pennsylvania woman simply stood by. And unlike Epps, Genco was not seen a day earlier encouraging a crowd to enter the Capitol illegally.

                  That incident took place just outside the restricted area, but Epps was later filmed well inside the forbidden zone, as was Genco.

                  source

                  Is Trump on video the night before advocating going into the Capitol? Was Trump at the barricade?
                  As I've pointed out, advocating going into the Capitol the night before was not a crime, and being at the barricade was not a crime.

                  I'd have to look at that, but given Samsel beating by the police, he would likely be more agreeable to what he's being asked while detained.
                  Samsel claimed that he was beaten in March of 2021. He gave his statement to the FBI essentially exonerating Epps before that, in late January of 2021.

                  Since his arrest, Ryan Samsel has been held in a Washington DC prison. On March 21, 2021, Ryan was awakened by correctional officers and his hands were zip-tied. Then they walked him to an unoccupied cell where he was brutally beaten by the officers. Ryan Samsel lost an eye in the beating. His face was smashed. The next day the guards beat him again.

                  source


                  ​​​​​​
                  Just two days after the attack, when Mr. Epps saw himself on a list of suspects from Jan. 6, he called an F.B.I. tip line and told investigators that he had tried to calm Mr. Samsel down when they spoke, according to three people who have heard a recording of the call. Mr. Epps went on to say that he explained to Mr. Samsel that the police outside the building were merely doing their jobs, the people said.

                  ​​​​​​Then in late January of last year, in an interview with the F.B.I., Mr. Samsel said much the same thing, telling investigators that a man he did not know came up to him at the barricades and suggested he relax, according to a recording of the interview obtained by The New York Times.

                  “He came up to me and he said, ‘Dude’ — his entire words were, ‘Relax, the cops are doing their job,’” Mr. Samsel said.

                  source

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I actually have empathy for Epps even though a very strongly disagree with his politics and his behavior on Jan. 6. The harassment, accusations, conspiracy theories and personal attacks from all sides must be very difficult for him to deal with.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                      Says the first prong of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the controlling precedent on the separation between free speech and incitement.
                      .
                      Facts of the case ...
                      [snip for brevity]

                      I don't know how that is supposed to support your case since the word "imminent" is not defined. It might indicate a day or it might be a month. But instead of getting bogged down on the specific term "incitement", there are various inchoate offenses that Epps can be connected to. And to simply say "Oh, once he learned the FBI was looking for him, he turned himself in" does not exonerate him. That is an inference that keeps coming up. That Epps said he was sorry or something so the FBI took pity on him. That's a crock.

                      Both parties agreed on what the exchange was about.
                      Still irrelevant.

                      Brandenburg was decided in 1969 when I was 10 years old, making the suggestion that this is my timetable as woefully misinformed as your accusations against Epps.
                      Irrelevant. The case does not define your timetable.

                      Unlike the Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy, the actual topic of this thread, Epps did not take up a bullhorn at the barricades to incite the crowd to join in the attack, physically remove the crowd control barriers, physically attack police officers in the process, identify and gather Proud Boys to a series of weak points in the perimeter, batter and pepper spray police officers guarding the entrances to the Capitol, or batter his way through a window creating the first breach near the Senate.
                      I see you are now introducing a bullhorn and adding other crimes. Yes, Epps also didn't bring a machine gun and fire into the buildings. BUT ... we was still provoking the crowd into criminal activity. Your smokescreen doesn't hide that. He was clearly committing one or more crimes by his activity and the FBI sent him home with a pat on his back.

                      200w.gif

                      AThe above was written after the emails gathered during discovery in the Dominion case showed Carlson willingly misled his audience. Carlson called for Jacqui Heinrich to be fired for fact checking. Carlson promoted the Epps conspiracy in more than 20 shows. There's no turning that bus around. If he reversed himself now, he'd be hung out to dry by his audience, exactly what happened when he debunked Sidney Powell.
                      Fair enough. But there were other non-left news shows to go on. Heck, he could have even signed an affidavit on MSNBC. That would have moved the needle in his favor, but he can't even do that.

                      Your citation references a news organization correcting an error, from which you draw the conclusion the news organization is dishonest.
                      No. You are drawing a conclusion that I am saying 60 Minutes is dishonest when I linked to an article of them correcting an error. My statement was that they are not infallible. Do you often read your biases into the statements of others?

                      Only because the very concept that he is anything but guilty of working with the FBI is anathema to your conspiracy-addled mind.
                      No. It is a false premise because you built a false premise.

                      He and his wife were interviewed, on video, for the 60 Minutes report in that RV.
                      Then it must be true!

                      Even the most rudimentary google search shows corroboration from news organizations and quasi-news organizations from the mainstream broadcast media to the Daily Fail.

                      https://www.google.com/search?q=ray+epps

                      You appear to have let your biases keep you from even the consideration of any evidence that would dislodge your conspiracy theories.

                      Let me know how that works out.
                      What I found is that a Google deep search into Ray Epps' history prior to J6 is suspiciously scant. I can find more information on transients.

                      In your thread, not mine.
                      Moved to an appropriate thread. And since your arguments are based upon what Epps has said on various MSM TV shows, and not on the actual inconsistencies of this person and his activities, I doubt you have any more to add anyway.
                      Last edited by Ronson; 05-05-2023, 07:19 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I love how we're supposed believe after he's on camera multiple times instigating the raid on the capitol, in fact even acknowledged that it was unlawful and he didn't even want to say it, yet once they're at the capitol he supposedly switched views and told the rioters not to instigate police.

                        It's really bizarre how J6 leftists are defending this guy.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                          [snip for brevity]

                          I don't know how that is supposed to support your case since the word "imminent" is not defined. It might indicate a day or it might be a month. But instead of getting bogged down on the specific term "incitement", there are various inchoate offenses that Epps can be connected to. And to simply say "Oh, once he learned the FBI was looking for him, he turned himself in" does not exonerate him. That is an inference that keeps coming up. That Epps said he was sorry or something so the FBI took pity on him. That's a crock.
                          "Imminent" is an English word familiar to all but the tiniest fraction of native English speakers. It's defined in the current context by the Brandenburg case itself. On the other hand, inchoate is less well known. Y'all need to look that word up. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

                          At this point, I can't even tell what charges your inchoate accusations (note the proper usage) are looking to frame around Epps. Exonerate him from what crime.

                          Still irrelevant.
                          In the stick-your-head-in-the-sand-like-an ostrich-sense. Because saying you don't know what Epps said to Samsel when both of them have told you what he said is exactly the conspiracy-addled thinking I cautioned you about.

                          Irrelevant. The case does not define your timetable.
                          Yes it is relevant and yes the case does define my timetable. Because it's not actually my timetable, it's the generally accepted timetable used by the people who bring these cases to court. I didn't go poring through legal opinions to find Brandenburg. I listened to federal prosecutors on various podcasts discussing incitement and citing Brandenburg as the controlling precedent. And then I looked up the case, read the summary on Oyez and read the full decision as well.

                          The separation in time between the Klan's encouragement in Brandenburg and the actions that followed, targeting "n-words" and "jews" was deemed too wide to override first amendment protections of free speech. That's the timetable for "imminent" from the controlling precedent.

                          I see you are now introducing a bullhorn and adding other crimes. Yes, Epps also didn't bring a machine gun and fire into the buildings. BUT ... we was still provoking the crowd into criminal activity. Your smokescreen doesn't hide that. He was clearly committing one or more crimes by his activity and the FBI sent him home with a pat on his back.
                          In some sense, having created a thread about the sedition charges against Proud Boys leadership, from which this post was abstracted, I did introduce the bullhorn and associated crimes. The fact remains that those actions brought forth at trial directly contradict your statement that "the only thing [Epps] didn't do was trespass."

                          I live for unwitting irony.

                          Fair enough. But there were other non-left news shows to go on. Heck, he could have even signed an affidavit on MSNBC. That would have moved the needle in his favor, but he can't even do that.
                          And no, you don't get to toss a whale on the scale on that one, either. The country is not right of its center or any other facile oxymoron you've somehow become accustomed to through repetition. Left means socialist means government control of the means of production. Mainstream means centrist. Right means conservative means resisting change.

                          And then there's whatever this is. Calling for an affidavit signed for a media outlet. That makes zero sense. Affidavits are legal documents created for use in court. God save us from trial by media. That's not left and it's not right, it's just plain wrong. And that still gives it too much credit. It's not even wrong.

                          No. You are drawing a conclusion that I am saying 60 Minutes is dishonest when I linked to an article of them correcting an error. My statement was that they are not infallible. Do you often read your biases into the statements of others?
                          You created a claim that if they were anything less than infallible, they couldn't be trusted. Having dismissed statements by both Epps and Samsel as dishonest, having dismissed a statement by the FBI as dishonest, having dismissed 60 Minutes itself as a leftist propagandist, to assume you meant 60 Minutes was merely mistaken would be overly generous.

                          You meant they couldn't be trusted because they're dishonest.

                          No. It is a false premise because you built a false premise.
                          That's a red herring because it's a red herring.

                          Then it must be true!
                          The alternative would be that the video was staged, and that not only Epps and his wife but the 60 Minutes crew itself was in on the deception. And that the entire gamut of media organizations from print to broadcast and every political persuasion who've written about Epps living in that RV were in on it as well.

                          And none of them talked.

                          That's the Achilles' hell of conspiracy theories. It's never really possible to keep the numbers in on the conspiracy low enough to protect the conspiracy itself while allowing them to grow far enough to cover everyone who could explode the conspiracy.

                          What I found is that a Google deep search into Ray Epps' history prior to J6 is suspiciously scant. I can find more information on transients.
                          That's not true, either. It's nearly impossible to find information on transients as a group, and to collect data on individual transients requires divine intervention.

                          Moved to an appropriate thread. And since your arguments are based upon what Epps has said on various MSM TV shows, and not on the actual inconsistencies of this person and his activities, I doubt you have any more to add anyway.
                          That's a statement consistent with the premise that you're willing to accept any accusation against Epps independent of its lack of support, while dismissing any debunking independent of its breadth of support. There's a word for that. It's called "bigotry."

                          And the only meaningful inconsistency is the truly bizarre claim that the FBI put their own agent on a Most Wanted list.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                            "Imminent" is an English word familiar to all but the tiniest fraction of native English speakers. It's defined in the current context by the Brandenburg case itself.
                            It is not. Quote the passage that defines "imminent" in regards to a specific time, please.

                            On the other hand, inchoate is less well known. Y'all need to look that word up. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
                            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inchoate_offense

                            At this point, I can't even tell what charges your inchoate accusations (note the proper usage) are looking to frame around Epps. Exonerate him from what crime.
                            See link. They're listed.

                            You may also want to visit this thread while you're at it:
                            https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...es#post1478814

                            Yes it is relevant and yes the case does define my timetable. Because it's not actually my timetable, it's the generally accepted timetable used by the people who bring these cases to court. I didn't go poring through legal opinions to find Brandenburg. I listened to federal prosecutors on various podcasts discussing incitement and citing Brandenburg as the controlling precedent. And then I looked up the case, read the summary on Oyez and read the full decision as well.
                            Then you should not have any trouble quoting the passage that defines "imminent" in regards to a specific time.

                            The separation in time between the Klan's encouragement in Brandenburg and the actions that followed, targeting "n-words" and "jews" was deemed too wide to override first amendment protections of free speech. That's the timetable for "imminent" from the controlling precedent.
                            That's an example, not a definition.

                            In some sense, having created a thread about the sedition charges against Proud Boys leadership, from which this post was abstracted, I did introduce the bullhorn and associated crimes. The fact remains that those actions brought forth at trial directly contradict your statement that "the only thing [Epps] didn't do was trespass."

                            I live for unwitting irony.
                            Then you should keep yourself amply amused.

                            And no, you don't get to toss a whale on the scale on that one, either. The country is not right of its center or any other facile oxymoron you've somehow become accustomed to through repetition. Left means socialist means government control of the means of production. Mainstream means centrist. Right means conservative means resisting change.

                            And then there's whatever this is. Calling for an affidavit signed for a media outlet. That makes zero sense. Affidavits are legal documents created for use in court. God save us from trial by media. That's not left and it's not right, it's just plain wrong. And that still gives it too much credit. It's not even wrong.
                            Hey, Epps is the one going TO THE MEDIA and crying about how mean the world is lying about him. Then Epps should prove them all false. It's his game.

                            You created a claim that if they were anything less than infallible, they couldn't be trusted. Having dismissed statements by both Epps and Samsel as dishonest, having dismissed a statement by the FBI as dishonest, having dismissed 60 Minutes itself as a leftist propagandist, to assume you meant 60 Minutes was merely mistaken would be overly generous.

                            You meant they couldn't be trusted because they're dishonest.
                            Mindreading 101: Fail.

                            TThe alternative would be that the video was staged, and that not only Epps and his wife but the 60 Minutes crew itself was in on the deception.
                            Nope. Epps (or his current/former agency) could have rented an RV and told 60 Minutes to meet them somewhere.

                            And that the entire gamut of media organizations from print to broadcast and every political persuasion who've written about Epps living in that RV were in on it as well.

                            And none of them talked.

                            That's the Achilles' hell of conspiracy theories. It's never really possible to keep the numbers in on the conspiracy low enough to protect the conspiracy itself while allowing them to grow far enough to cover everyone who could explode the conspiracy.
                            Perhaps, if your definition of a "conspiracy theory" were the only one. Or if your conspiracy theories were as complicated as you are painting this one.

                            That's not true, either. It's nearly impossible to find information on transients as a group, and to collect data on individual transients requires divine intervention.
                            I was able to Google more on a schizophrenic homeless school friend I once had than what I dug up on Epps.

                            That's a statement consistent with the premise that you're willing to accept any accusation against Epps independent of its lack of support, while dismissing any debunking independent of its breadth of support. There's a word for that. It's called "bigotry."

                            And the only meaningful inconsistency is the truly bizarre claim that the FBI put their own agent on a Most Wanted list.
                            Again, it is only bizarre if one thinks the FBI can't make mistakes. OR - it was intentional because Epps was so visible.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              I love how we're supposed believe after he's on camera multiple times instigating the raid on the capitol, in fact even acknowledged that it was unlawful and he didn't even want to say it, yet once they're at the capitol he supposedly switched views and told the rioters not to instigate police.

                              It's really bizarre how J6 leftists are defending this guy.
                              Liberals would rather get their panties in a bunch over buffalo guy, who by all accounts was peaceful and respectful, and who we learned was escorted into the Capitol by building security.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                                Liberals would rather get their panties in a bunch over buffalo guy, who by all accounts was peaceful and respectful, and who we learned was escorted into the Capitol by building security.
                                They have it completely backwards. Buffalo guy is on video telling everybody to go home through his bullhorn, Epps is on video telling everyone to raid the capitol. But that's loony leftist mentality, where they completely invert reality.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                232 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X