I found another angle of Ray Epps pushing the sign into police. Not only is he still pushing as the sign makes contact with officers, but he also then puts his hands on the backs of others in front of him and pushes them forward (like in a rugby scrum) to overwhelm the police. pic.twitter.com/Kh5xSbg9c3

— 🇺🇸 (@FreeStateWill) July 12, 2022

Several individuals have been charged with felony assault for pushing this sign into police. Ray Epps pushed it as it made contact with police, pointed for others to continue pushing it forward into police, then pushed those in front of him. Epps was removed from the FBI wanted list. There are still thousands of hours video that most people haven't seen yet.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Remember when people told us that they wanted the secret service to testify? Wonder what they are hiding.

CONFIRMED: Many of the United States Secret Service’s text messages sent on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021 were deleted after a Department of Homeland Security watchdog asked for them, per letter sent to Congress and confirmed by House Homeland spox

— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) July 14, 2022

---

I'm sure they can dig up some of the threads from some patriotic receipients.

LOL, yeah sure.

On the evening of Jan 5th, Epps urged people to go into the Capitol the next day

Here's Epps on the morning of Jan 6

Did Alan Feuer of NYT ask where Epps got the idea to go into the capitol, and why he was so obsessed with it? pic.twitter.com/KnoZAnzAgR

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) July 14, 2022

Meanwhile the NYT just wrote a fluff piece on Ray Epps except they didn't ask the most basic questions.

Oh my god.
I'm finally catching Day 7.

This is just so devastating!!

What percentage of the country is NOT watching this?

concordtom said:

---

Oh my god.
I'm finally catching Day 7.

This is just so devastating!!

---

It is? What day was it when someone said there was ketchup on the walls of the White House?

https://www.businessinsider.com/two-men-pepper-sprayed-officers-capitol-riot-wept-sentencing-2022-7?amp

3 years ?
Not nearly enuff because if I did the same thing I'd get 7-10 yrs easily. But when you have the complexion for protection

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I tend to agree that Cassidy Hutchinson was overhyped and served up salacious details more than lawbreaker details (with the exception of the weapons comment which I think is highly relevant). The Committee should have never had her get into hearsay. Now we will be subjected to arguments about the non-issue of how upset Trump was in the car, as if it matters. The Committee will go into recess and the right will effectively spend this time destroying the committee's reputation over this non-issue. Huge strategic error to rush this hearing forward to talk about hearsay. Look for the poll numbers to move against the committee in the upcoming weeks as the right now has their narrative. Stupid.

---

This is spot on and not the first time the committee has gone for headlines rather than substance and credibility. One problem you have is that if/when a witness is thought to be unreliable (or lying), it destroys their credibility. And of course, exhibit 1 to that is Trump himself.

Funny how many people on this board (and twitter) were euphoric yesterday over the hearsay tales of Trump grabbing the wheel, etc. Complete acceptance of the hearsay as true, with no skepticism among that crowd. Then when those stories were debunked (or at least questioned), it suddenly became "so what, it was not big deal anyway. The real point was XXXXX"

---

You don't get to question "hearsay" during sworn testimony in front of the nation and then pretend that anonymous tips constitute debunking. If Engel and/or Ornato offer sworn testimony that contradicts her claim that she was told about the incident in the car, then we will have a literal he said / she said situation where we can try to evaluate the credibility of the testimony. If it ever comes to a court of law, there can be a cross-examination and the trier of fact can make a determination.

Nothing has been debunked yet and no credible person would claim otherwise.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

Their testimony to the committee has FOR SOME REASON not been released and instead they decided to put Hutchinson's hearsay claims on the TV. Why? If this were a real fact finding committee, we would have heard directly from Engel and Ornato, and perhaps from Hutchinson - but the committee didn't do that. Why? It is almost like the Committee wants people to only see some of the evidence and allow a witness to make hearsay claims of events she has no knowledge of.

---

Like most of your comments in support of the insurrection and defense of the people involved, your take on Hutchinson's testimony aged like milk. Now that we've seen that the secret service "lost" text messages and numerous other people have supported her testimony, do you think it's reasonable to re-visit your prior comments? I certainly do.

---

Is this where we drone on and on about spoliation presumptions even though they don't technically apply here because this isn't a trial or a court of law? Just curious.

That's true …

So who planted the pipe bombs outside the DNC and RNC or does the media not care anymore because it doesn't fit any narrative benefitting Democrats?

MTG

BearGoggles said:

---

So back to the actual question I raised and you refused to address. Why did the "fact finding" committee not ask Cipollone about Hutchinson's the hearsay testimony? If they were interested in finding the facts, they would do that. If you were interested in learning what happened, you would want them to ask that question. Speaks volumes.

---

Patience Grasshopper.
Patience.

Transcript: Rep. Adam Kinzinger on "Face the Nation," July 17, 2022 - CBS News

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the committee has, though, spoken in the past with some Secret Service officers. So do you have a date yet to question the two in particular, Tony Ornato, about what happened January 6? Of course, he's relevant because of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about what happened in the vehicle.

REP. KINZINGER: Look, we're still working on that. We'd love to have him come in. We're- we're working out those details. We know that through, I guess, anonymous sources, they've said they're going to be happy to come in and testify. We would encourage anybody to, anybody that knows anything, but it's got to be under oath. Right now, it's just been discussion from Secret Service through anonymous sources. And that to me, compared to somebody like Cassidy Hutchinson, who swore under oath, what she had heard, that's important to come in and do that. So that's still ongoing, but hopefully we get that.

Transcript: Rep. Adam Kinzinger on "Face the Nation," July 17, 2022 - CBS News

MARGARET BRENNAN: CNN was reporting a D.C. police officer who had been somehow involved in the motorcade arrangements, was corroborating the testimony given by Cassidy Hutchinson, that there was an almost violent confrontation with the former president in the vehicle that day. Is that what the committee has been told?

REP. KINZINGER: I can't confirm or deny those because we haven't come out with who we have or haven't spoken to. I'll just say, I'm not going to aggressively push back on that characterization and we have every reason to believe that what Cassidy Hutchinson said, at least from what she said she heard, because she wasn't in the limo never said she was--

Transcript: Rep. Adam Kinzinger on "Face the Nation," July 17, 2022 - CBS News

MARGARET BRENNAN: So 187 minutes, you're leading this hearing, you- you know what you can present at this point. Can you at least tell us if you filled in the blanks of you know who the President was actually speaking with? Why there weren't phone records, for example, of phone calls he may have placed during that time period?

REP. KINZINGER: We have filled in the blanks. I can't necessarily say that the motives behind every piece of information we know we'll be able to explain. But this is going to open people's eyes in a big way. The reality is- I'll give you this preview, the president didn't do very much but gleefully watch television during this timeframe. We're going to present a lot more than that, but I could only imagine as- I mean, I knew what I felt like as a US Congressman, if I was a president, sworn to defend the Constitution, that includes the legislative branch, watching this on television, I know I would have been going ballistic to try to save the Capitol. He did quite the opposite.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The President didn't do anything?

REP. KINZINGER: The President didn't do anything, and we're going to fill those blanks in and if the American people watch this, particularly I say as to my fellow Republicans, watch this with an open mind and is this the kind of strong leader you really think you deserve?

Transcript: Rep. Adam Kinzinger on "Face the Nation," July 17, 2022 - CBS News

AunBear89 said:

---

MTG

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

Adam Schiff opened the Capitol doors for the Colbert people on 6/17. Someone told Capitol police to open the doors on 1/6, even AOC know this was an inside job.

But her emails. I wonder if they injected bleach in their phones to delete the texts?

PURGED — Here’s the news. ⁦Those @SecretService⁩ texts are gone, gone, gone . Agency scoured records and said it found nothing new to give Congress . National Archives now investigating if USSS broke the law https://t.co/ROMnhjXSf5

— Carol Leonnig (@CarolLeonnig) July 19, 2022

I'm not a tech person by any means but I always thought anything digital was saved somewhere up the chain. Like, if I deleted a text the police could still get it. I imagine the Secret Service is on a different system but anybody know the details?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Should be a barnstormer today.

EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 cmte plans to humiliate MAGA lawmakers who cowered during Capitol attack https://t.co/jqyJNf2GLb

— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) July 21, 2022

---

That will be fun. Maybe they can explain how they always cry and hide behind desks during regular, normal public visits.

dajo9 said:

---

I'm not a tech person by any means but I always thought anything digital was saved somewhere up the chain. Like, if I deleted a text the police could still get it. I imagine the Secret Service is on a different system but anybody know the details?

---

Who knew that the DEEP STATE that Donald Trump was always battling (ie. Secret Service) turned out to be in his "pocket" after all.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I'm not a tech person by any means but I always thought anything digital was saved somewhere up the chain. Like, if I deleted a text the police could still get it. I imagine the Secret Service is on a different system but anybody know the details?

---

Who knew that the DEEP STATE that Donald Trump was always battling (ie. Secret Service) turned out to be in his "pocket" after all.

---

The Deep State isn't so deep, it's in your face as Steve Bannon says. It's the ADMNISTRATIVE STATE; they don't hide, no one voted for them, and they will stay in DC no matter who is president as long as they want.

It's so weird that someone that I have on IGNORE thinks that I care what their "reply" is.
Not sure why they would waste their "valuable" time.
Maybe its not so valuable?

BearForce2 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I'm not a tech person by any means but I always thought anything digital was saved somewhere up the chain. Like, if I deleted a text the police could still get it. I imagine the Secret Service is on a different system but anybody know the details?

---

Who knew that the DEEP STATE that Donald Trump was always battling (ie. Secret Service) turned out to be in his "pocket" after all.

---

The Deep State isn't so deep, it's in your face as Steve Bannon says. It's the ADMNISTRATIVE STATE; they don't hide, no one voted for them, and they will stay in DC no matter who is president as long as they want.

---

Hmm...I recall Trump trying to leverage and bully government agencies to do his bidding. I don't recall Trump ever trying to change Administrative law in the US.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.

🚨NBC News: DHS IG investigation into missing Secret Service text messages is now a criminal probe, two sources familiar tell @JuliaEAinsley @PeteWilliamsNBC

Results of the investigation could be referred to federal prosecutors, the sources said, depending on the results.

— Lauren Peikoff (@laurenpeikoff) July 21, 2022

The Secret Service really went on a ride from ‘our boys will be up on the Hill directly going under oath to contradict Cassidy Hutchinson’ to ‘we deleted all the records you asked for and now will say no more’ in about two weeks.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) July 21, 2022

---

I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.

I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Page emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.

In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements? Much of her testimony remains uncorroborated and in some cases, directly contradicted on the record by percipient witnesses.

Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CgRp8QygVde/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CgSKsJMpzoo/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=