Tag Archives: January 6 protest

80 ‘Suspicious Actors’ And ‘Material Witnesses’ Under Scrutiny By Jan. 6 Defense Attorneys, by Joseph M. Hanneman

It is certainly possible, even probable, that the January 6 “insurrection” was an entrapment operation set up by the government. From Joseph M. Hanneman at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:

Defense attorneys seek to identify and investigate 80 suspicious actors and material witnesses, some of whom allegedly ran an entrapment operation against the Oath Keepers on January 6, 2021, and committed crimes including the removal of security fencing, breaching police lines, attacking officers, and inciting crowds to storm into the Capitol.

Attorney Brad Geyer seeks information on unidentified “suspicious actors” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Brad Geyer/Graphic via The Epoch Times)

In a motion (pdf) and supplement (pdf) filed after 11 p.m. on May 5 in federal court in Washington, attorney Brad Geyer listed 80 people, some of whom he said could be government agents or provocateurs. The people are seen on video operating in a coordinated fashion across the Capitol grounds on January 6, the attorney alleged.

Geyer’s suggestion of an entrapment scheme will resonate with dozens of January 6 defense attorneys, coming shortly after two men were acquitted of an alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). There was a hung jury on charges against two other defendants. The jury in that case was allowed to consider FBI entrapment as a defense.

Geyer, who represents Oath Keepers defendant Kenneth Harrelson, is seeking a court order from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta compelling federal prosecutors to help identify the individuals and disclose whether they were working for law enforcement or any government agency on January 6. Geyer wrote that the information is exculpatory, which compels the government to produce it. Other Oath Keepers defendants are expected to join in the motion.

Continue reading→

Video: Ted Cruz Apologises For Calling Jan 6th A ‘Terrorist Attack’; It Was “Sloppy” And “Dumb”, by Steve Watson

Ted Cruz belatedly realizes that you can’t call the participants in the Capitol protests “terrorists” without pissing off a lot potential voters. From Steve Watson at summit.news:

Tucker Carlson tells Cruz he’s “not buying it”

Screenshot

After encountering a huge backlash from conservatives for describing the events of January 6th 2021 as a “violent terrorist attack,” Senator Ted Cruz apologised and admitted that his language was “dumb” and “sloppy”.

Cruz appeared on Tucker Carlson’s evening show Thursday, apparently at his own request, and attempted to back track on what he said, claiming that he’d been referring to attacks on police.

Carlson said to Cruz “There are a lot of dumb people in the Congress. You are not one of them. I think you’re smarter than I am. And you never use words carelessly. And yet you called this a terror attack when by no definition was it a terror attack. That’s a lie. You told that lie on purpose, and I’m wondering why you did.”

Cruz responded “When you aired your episode last night, I sent you a text shortly thereafter and said listen, I would like to go on because the way I phrased things yesterday, it was sloppy, and it was frankly dumb.”

Carlson interjected, urging “Look, I’ve known you a long time. Since before you went to the Senate, you’re a Supreme court contender. You take words as seriously as any man who’s ever served in the Senate. And every word you repeated that phrase. I do not believe that you use that accidentally. I just don’t.”

Continue reading→

Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol, by Revolver

If this story is correct, and it’s very well researched, then 1/6 was an FBI set up. From Revolver at revolver.news:

In a House hearing on Thursday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) questioned AG Merrick Garland about a mysterious man, Ray Epps, instructing protesters to enter the US Capitol building on January 5, and who later shepherded crowds towards the Capitol on January 6.

The story of the mystery man, Ray Epps, featured in Rep. Massie’s video above is in fact far more shocking than even the good Congressman implies in the hearing. It’s a story so strange, and so scandalous at every turn, that it threatens to shatter the entire official narrative of the “Capitol Breach” and expose yet another dimension of proactive federal involvement in the so-called “insurrection” of January 6th.

If Revolver News’s previous reporting points to a proactive role of the federal government in relation to the conspiracy cases against Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, the Ray Epps story that follows suggests a similar, yet more egregious, explicit, direct and immediate degree of federal involvement in the breach of the Capitol itself.

Here is a transcript of Thomas Massie’s exchange with the Attorney General, just in case you skipped past the video above.

Rep. Massie: As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying he’ll probably go to jail, he’ll probably be arrested, but they need to go into the Capitol the next day, is then directing people into the Capitol the next day, is then the next day directing people to the Capitol. And as far as we can find. You said this is one of the most sweeping in history. Have you seen that video, or those frames from that video?

AG Garland: So as I said at the outset, one of the norms of the Justice Department is to not comment on pending investigations, and particularly not to comment on particular scenes or particular individuals.

Rep. Massie: I was hoping today to give you an opportunity to put to rest the concerns that people have that there were federal agents or assets of the federal government present on January 5 and January 6. Can you tell us, without talking about particular incidents or particular videos, how many agents or assets of the federal government were present on January 6, whether they agitated to go into the Capitol, and if any of them did?

AG Garland: So I’m not going to violate this norm of, uh, of, of, of, the rule of law.

[Looks down and away]

I’m not going to comment on an investigation that’s ongoing.

Continue reading→