Yesterday, we talked about the need to dig deep into conspiracy theories for which there’s credible evidence, noting that the term “conspiracy theory” itself is neutral until facts emerge that prove or disprove it. The claim that the Capitol Hill security breach was more of a “fed-surrection” than an insurrection is one of those so-called conspiracy theories that deserve to be taken seriously. So let’s take a closer look.
RELATED READING: Answering a reader about "conspiracy theories"
In a preposterous reach, Sen. Chuck Schumer is using January 6 to try to justify ending the filibuster so the Senate can pass the “election reform” bill that Democrats so desperately want passed, to help them cheat---I mean, preserve democracy. (Pardon my bluntness, but affecting the outcome of elections is undoubtedly what they want to use this for.) Mark Elias is already using the courts for this, but they really need a, shall we say, comprehensive strategy to ensure a win this time.
Laura Ingraham, on FOX News’ Ingraham Angle, showed the clip of Sen. Schumer saying to Joy Reid on MSNBC, “...If we don’t change the [filibuster] rules, the Republicans will block this [election reform], and our democracy could be at risk, and even wither, invariably, in real ways.”
Thanks to Laura for pointing out that in 2005, when Republicans held the majority, Schumer was saying the opposite about the filibuster. Today, he assumes most of us are too stupid to realize that, or to understand that if the Senate ends the filibuster rule and passes the so-called “Voting Rights” bill, we’ll have one-party rule and the whole Democrat agenda will be forced through, regardless of what voters think of it.
But, to get back to my original point, Schumer is using January 6 as a pretext for all of this. As we’ve said, the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill breach plays into the hands of Democrats so incredibly well, we’d naturally suspect that if Republicans hadn’t planned it to happen, the Democrats would’ve MADE it happen. So, did they? That’s a conspiracy theory –- so far neither proven or disproven –- but we’re finding out more all the time that strongly suggests covert federal operatives were urging it on.
Fortunately, even though Congress won’t do its oversight job on this –- does anyone seriously think their “committee” is anything more than a kangaroo court? –- there are other ways to uncover the full story of what happened, and one is through evidence submitted in actual court cases. To cite another example of how this works, recall that Special Counsel John Durham’s “Russia” investigation was helped a great deal by litigation that went on in London in a civil suit brought by Alfa Bank against Christopher Steele of “dossier” fame. Durham learned a LOT from testimony in that case. Likewise, even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “special committee” won’t be turning over the rocks we’d want them to, other litigation regarding January 6 could bring to light key information.
For example, in the government’s case against Kelly Meggs, an Oath Keepers member accused of conspiring to storm the Capitol, his attorney Jon Moseley is calling some very interesting witnesses: Ray Epps (a riot instigator who’s strangely not being prosecuted), Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes (ditto), and “Utah activist” John Sullivan (an apparent leftist agitator).
Mosely told National File that he believes their testimony will prove his client’s innocence and also that the entire prosecution is politically motivated.
National File reports: “FBI sources stold Reuters earlier this year that there was little to zero evidence of any plans to take hostages in the Capitol and stop the count of electoral votes.” Yet this level of interference is what Schumer uses as an excuse to end the filibuster and federalize elections.
National File also cites the Revolver News investigative reports that we’ve been bringing you. What they’ve turned up is highly suggestive that Rhodes was working in some capacity for the federal government while there that day. While defendant Meggs has been held without bail for nearly a year (!), Rhodes, for some reason, was interviewed by the FBI but was not been charged with any crime.
As for Epps, Revolver News exposed him as someone who, on both January 5 and 6, took to a bullhorn and urged conservatives to storm the Capitol during Trump’s rally. He’s on video –- check out Rumble –- “telling people to enter the Capitol and beat up police,” Moseley said. You’d think someone caught on video doing something like that would’ve been at the top of the list for indictment and detention without bail, but for some reason he just wasn’t.
In case you didn’t see this the first time we linked to it, here’s the most recent Revolver News report on Ray Epps. It’s extremely detailed but highly recommended; you might need to come back to it later.
About a month ago, National File reported that they had obtained documentation of an FBI interview with “Person 10,” the Oath Keepers member who planned the security detail for that day, that made it clear: Oath Keepers had had no plans to storm the Capitol on January 6.
But according to Moseley, the indictment against his client alleges there was “a well-plotted Oath Keepers conspiracy to take over the Capitol on January 6.” He describes this allegation as the government “doubling down on things they know were false.” “Person 10,” according to FBI notes, made it clear he had no idea this was going to happen and “could not believe” people went into the Capitol. He, Rhodes and others had dinner at the Olive Garden that night and talked about this and also, incidentally, about “a girl that was shot.” I wonder if they knew then that the girl, Ashli Babbitt, had been unarmed and was shot in cold blood by federal security.
National File reports that “the interview with Person 10 now makes clear that he sought to remove Oath Keepers from any danger at the Capitol, and stop fights between protesters and police officers.” He said he was in charge of what they called their “Quick Detention Force,” which was intended to help provide security if there was an attack by “antifa or others.” It was never activated, he said.
Moseley told National File that they’ve got lots of other things they’re going to do as part of Kelly Meggs’ defense. He says other witnesses have confirmed “Person 10’s” story to the FBI. He suspects prosecutorial misconduct and will be seeking notes from the grand jury to determine this.
In another court case, a 39-year-old mother of four from Minnesota, Victoria White, is claiming that on January 6, she was forced into an entrance, trapped in a crush of people, and repeatedly beaten by police. Surveillance footage reportedly shows the woman, visible in a red MAGA hat, being hit with a baton and fist nearly 40 times in about 4 minutes.
A judge in the case has ordered that three hours of video from that day be released. So once again, it’s through court cases related to January 6 --- NOT the government’s sham “investigation” --- that will tell us more of what we need to know about that day.