Ray Epps' attorney demands retraction and on-air apology from Fox News and Tucker Carlson over ‘lies’

[essentialsaltes]

An attorney for Ray Epps, the Arizona man that January 6 conspiracy theorists falsely claim led an FBI plot to orchestrate the insurrection, demanded an on-air retraction Thursday from Fox News and its right-wing talk host Tucker Carlson, and claimed they made “false and defamatory statements” about him.

“The fanciful notions that Mr. Carlson advances on his show regarding Mr. Epps’s involvement in the January 6th insurrection are demonstrably (and already proven to be) false,” the attorney, Michael Teter, wrote in the letter. “And yet, Mr. Carlson persists with his assault on the truth.”

The letter from Teter demanded a formal retraction and on-air apology “for the lies” that have been spread about Epps on the channel.

In a private deposition with the House committee that investigated January 6, Epps denied that he ever worked for the FBI or for federal law enforcement, according to a transcript of his interview. These denials from Epps are meaningful because it’s a crime to lie to Congress.

--

see also: Who is Ray Epps?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The evidence touted by Revolver and Carlson was always circumstantial at best and often simply ridiculous.

Epps is shown on video near a bike rack that was one of the first barriers to the Capitol to be overrun by protesters. In fact, Epps is seen speaking to a man shortly before that man seizes the rack. Epps subsequently became one of scores of people at the Capitol who were identified as people of interest by the FBI but was soon removed from the list — suspiciously, in Carlson’s telling.

All of this has been explained. The man who grabbed the bike rack, for example, was named Ryan Samsel. He told investigators that Epps hadn’t been encouraging him to remove the barrier; in fact, he said that Epps tried to de-escalate the scene, telling him, “relax, the cops are doing their job.” When Epps had seen his face on the FBI’s website, he quickly contacted the FBI and told them the same story. His face was subsequently removed from the bureau’s website.

Epps also spoke to investigators from the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot. In January 2022, the committee released a statement answering the other part of Carlson’s allegations, that he was not a federal agent or otherwise working with federal agencies.

 

[USincognito]

Two years and two months later and they're still trying to make Ray Epps a thing. Good for him standing up to their conspiracy mongering.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Two years and two months later and they're still trying to make Ray Epps a thing. Good for him standing up to their conspiracy mongering.

One of the PB defendants has been trying to subpoena him, so far unsucessfully, as it seems Mr. Epps is avoiding service of the subpoena to testify. (The original subpoena listed testimony today -- it did not happen.) This seems to indicate the Judge thought he wasn't an inappropriate witness (for an alternative theory, one alternative to "the PBs drove the Capitol attack"), though there have been some lengthy closed discussions between the judge and attorneys, so no one knows what has been in discussion. Perhaps it is Mr. Epps.)

I too wish Mr. Epps luck in getting a payday from Tucker et al., he can put that payment to his own criminal defense.

 

[grasping the after wind]

An attorney for Ray Epps, the Arizona man that January 6 conspiracy theorists falsely claim led an FBI plot to orchestrate the insurrection, demanded an on-air retraction Thursday from Fox News and its right-wing talk host Tucker Carlson, and claimed they made “false and defamatory statements” about him.

“The fanciful notions that Mr. Carlson advances on his show regarding Mr. Epps’s involvement in the January 6th insurrection are demonstrably (and already proven to be) false,” the attorney, Michael Teter, wrote in the letter. “And yet, Mr. Carlson persists with his assault on the truth.”

The letter from Teter demanded a formal retraction and on-air apology “for the lies” that have been spread about Epps on the channel.

In a private deposition with the House committee that investigated January 6, Epps denied that he ever worked for the FBI or for federal law enforcement, according to a transcript of his interview. These denials from Epps are meaningful because it’s a crime to lie to Congress.

--

see also: Who is Ray Epps?

Crime to lie to Congress? I don't know how effective a deterrent to lying that might be. Especially if one is telling a congressional committee what that committee wants to hear. I have no idea who Ray Epps is or what he might or might not have done but I surely don't think the Jan 6 committee would ask the Biden Justice Dept. to bring charges against someone that reinforced the narrative for which they formed the committee.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I surely don't think the Jan 6 committee would ask the Biden Justice Dept. to bring charges against someone that reinforced the narrative for which they formed the committee.

I surely think you're wrong -- and not just your question-begging description of the committee's work. Jan 6 participant Stephen Ayres testified to the committee and pleaded guilty to charges and received a sentence (2 years probation).

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have no idea who Ray Epps is or what he might or might not have done but I surely don't think the Jan 6 committee would ask the Biden Justice Dept. to bring charges against someone that reinforced the narrative for which they formed the committee.

The Jan 6 committee only recommended charges for exactly one person for there actions connected to Jan 6 -- Donald John Trump. The criminal investigation in his role is ongoing. So, there is nothing to glean from the committee's non-recommendation to charge Mr. Epps. Post #2 describes some of his actions that merit a felony charge, but Mr. Epps is one among hundreds that are deserving of such charges that have yet to be charged.

 

[hislegacy]

Here is the video - so why isn't he arrested? He is clearly inciting violence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is the video - so why isn't he arrested? He is clearly inciting violence.

Incitement is a lot harder to demonstrate than that. To show that it is not protected political speech requires proximity. Shouting about taking the Capitol to random strangers on the street the night before something like that happens just isn't legally incitement.

It would be *very* different if he had taken a bull horn the next day, after the initial breaches, when there was a line of contact at the base of the Capitol steps between the cops and the crowd and had shouted to "Push forward. Push past the cops. Enter the Capitol.", but he didn't. (If anything Epps is seen apparently diffusing a few hot heads in the crowd at that point.) If he'd done that, riling up an active crowd to take immediate action, he definitely would have been charged for aiding and abetting. But that's not what he did.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I surely think you're wrong -- and not just your question-begging description of the committee's work. Jan 6 participant Stephen Ayres testified to the committee and pleaded guilty to charges and received a sentence (2 years probation).

That is rather irrelevant to what I was talking about, isn't it? The point I was rebutting was the claim that Epps would not lie to the committee because they would refer him to the DOJ for prosecution for lying to the committee. Before I go on though I want to make it clear that I am in no way claiming that Epps did lie to the committee. It is my opinion that the committee in question, would not be disposed to want to find that a witness had been lying if that witness's testimony reinforced the narrative they wished to present. As for Ayers, he was not charged with lying to the committee. The Judge, in this case, seems to be saying, in the quote below, from the article you provided, that he gave Ayeres a somewhat lighter sentence than he could have based upon cooperation both with law enforcement and with his testimony before the Jan. 6 committee. So it does not involve lying before the committee and is irrelevant to whether or not Ray Epps would fear lying to the committeee.

"He was in the Capitol only about 10 minutes ... never going into any of the more sensitive areas of the Capitol," Bates said during the sentencing hearing. "He has fully cooperated with law enforcement, and I have to say that from my assessment, he has shown genuine remorse and regret, and that includes testifying before the January 6 committee."

 

[grasping the after wind]

The Jan 6 committee only recommended charges for exactly one person for there actions connected to Jan 6 -- Donald John Trump.

I wasn't aware that Trump was the only one the committee recommended charges for. AFAIK Trump was not at the Capitol that day. That being the case, why is a person that was not there the only person that the committee found reason to recommend charges for? Weren't there hundreds of people that were there inside the Capitol? and the committee couldn't find reason to recommend charges for any of them only for Trump who was not there?
Shouldn't I be surprised by that? I suppose not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wasn't aware that Trump was the only one the committee recommended charges for. AFAIK Trump was not at the Capitol that day.

He definitely was not at the Capitol that day.

That being the case, why is a person that was not there the only person that the committee found reason to recommend charges for?

Because he is culpable for what happened. The case is laid out in their report.

Weren't there hundreds of people that were there inside the Capitol?

At least 3000.

and the committee couldn't find reason to recommend charges for any of them only for Trump who was not there?

The committee was not in the business of identifying individual rioters. It was in the business of investigating the origins of the event, the failures of the response, and any needed changes to the law to make it less likely in the future.

Shouldn't I be surprised by that? I suppose not.

You shouldn't have been surprised, but I fear not for the reason you probably weren't. Understanding the scope and purpose of the committee would have made it clear that they weren't going to be investigating the individuals who attacked cops in the tunnel with a hockey stick, turned the C-SPAN camera in the Senate chamber down to the floor, or paraded through the rotunda with the confederate flag. They were investigating origins and organizers.

 

[grasping the after wind]

He definitely was not at the Capitol that day.

Because he is culpable for what happened. The case is laid out in their report.

At least 3000.

The committee was not in the business of identifying individual rioters. It was in the business of investigating the origins of the event, the failures of the response, and any needed changes to the law to make it less likely in the future.

You shouldn't have been surprised, but I fear not for the reason you probably weren't. Understanding the scope and purpose of the committee would have made it clear that they weren't going to be investigating the individuals who attacked cops in the tunnel with a hockey stick, turned the C-SPAN camera in the Senate chamber down to the floor, or paraded through the rotunda with the confederate flag. They were investigating origins and organizers.

You mean they were going after Trump? I agree that is why the committee had to be composed of people that could be counted on to find Trump culpable. They could have just called a press conference and told us they found Trump culpable and saved everyone a lot of time and money.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is exactly what I meant by "You shouldn't have been surprised, but I fear not for the reason you probably weren't."

You mean they were going after Trump? I agree that is why the committee had to be composed of people that could be counted on to find Trump culpable. They could have just called a press conference and told us they found Trump culpable and saved everyone a lot of time and money.

You make it clear that you view the J6 Committee as nothing other than a planned hit job on Trump. If find this attitude and partisan obliviousness to truth truly sad. I hope that you take some time to review the work of the committee. (Such as reading their report.)

Even just on the aspects regarding Trump, the committee didn't have non-public information about what went on in the White House, etc. until they got documents and interviewed witnesses. That's why the committee existed.

 

[DaisyDay]

You mean they were going after Trump? I agree that is why the committee had to be composed of people that could be counted on to find Trump culpable. They could have just called a press conference and told us they found Trump culpable and saved everyone a lot of time and money.

It certainly didn't have to be. Certain cronies of Trump were excluded because they participated, but the original offer was for equal numbers on the committee with equal subpoena powers.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is exactly what I meant by "You shouldn't have been surprised, but I fear not for the reason you probably weren't."



You make it clear that you view the J6 Committee as nothing other than a planned hit job on Trump. If find this attitude and partisan obliviousness to truth truly sad. I hope that you take some time to review the work of the committee. (Such as reading their report.)

Even just on the aspects regarding Trump, the committee didn't have non-public information about what went on in the White House, etc. until they got documents and interviewed witnesses. That's why the committee existed.

The Committee existed to find Trump culpable. There was no room for anyone on that committee that was not determined to do so. Had even one person not so committed to that outcome been placed upon that committee, I would be open to being convinced that it was something other than political theater where the outcome was a forgone conclusion.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It certainly didn't have to be. Certain cronies of Trump were excluded because they participated, but the original offer was for equal numbers on the committee with equal subpoena powers.

Those that might defend Trump or perhaps question how a person not at the Capitol could be culpable for what happened at the Capitol: were excluded but those that had an axe to grind against Trump were not excluded. What participation are you claiming for those excluded? Could the Democrats in charge not find even one Republican that was not only not a crony of Trump's but also did not have a personal grudge against Trump?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Committee existed to find Trump culpable. There was no room for anyone on that committee that was not determined to do so. Had even one person not so committed to that outcome been placed upon that committee, I would be open to being convinced that it was something other than political theater where the outcome was a forgone conclusion.

Not sure what this has to do with Ray Epps, but I see no need to continue a conversation with someone so poorly informed.

 

[SimplyMe]

The Committee existed to find Trump culpable. There was no room for anyone on that committee that was not determined to do so. Had even one person not so committed to that outcome been placed upon that committee, I would be open to being convinced that it was something other than political theater where the outcome was a forgone conclusion.

But that is just it, there were such people put on the committee. One example is Troy Nehls, a strong Trump supporting Republican from Texas. He was appointed by McCarthy and Speaker Pelosi accepted his nomination and put him on the committee -- he could have been attended the various committee meetings. That is the reason why Speaker Pelosi only appointed two Republicans to the committee -- they were the two replacements for the two Republicans that were rejected because they were likely to be witnesses called (because of phone calls and text messages they made and/or received on 1/6).

There could have been Trump loving Republicans on the committee -- any of those that Pelosi accepted were still considered to be part of the committee (a reason for only two replacements being selected). Of course, apparently those two that were picked were the only two that would accept the appointment. Regardless, the remainder of the Republicans could have still been a part of the committee, they were never removed once appointed, just that since Minority Leader McCarthy wouldn't allow them to participate, they refused to participate.

There was clearly room for others on the committee. It is on Republicans that they refused to allow Trump supporters on the committee.

 

[DaisyDay]

Those that might defend Trump or perhaps question how a person not at the Capitol could be culpable for what happened at the Capitol: were excluded but those that had an axe to grind against Trump were not excluded. What participation are you claiming for those excluded? Could the Democrats in charge not find even one Republican that was not only not a crony of Trump's but also did not have a personal grudge against Trump?

It wasn’t up to the Democrats to find such a creature but for Kevin McCarthy to offer someone who did not participate in the thing that the committee would be investigating. He declined and forbade his party from participating.

What participation? Planning to subvert the process by refusing to accept the actual slate of electors submitted by the states and substituting the fake, illegal “alternative” slate.