WorldNetDaily has been obsessed for quite some time with Ray Epps, a participant in the Capitol riot, looking to frame him as an agent provocateur who was somehow responsible for other people breaking the law. Nearly two years on, WND is still clinging to conspiracy theories about Epps; a July 14 article by Art Moore complained that the New York Times did what WND would and actually looked into Epps’ story and cleared him of being some kind of secret government agent, calling in a fellow conspiracy theorist for backup:
Why did the New York Times run a story in defense of the one man who has been captured on video urging people to storm the Capitol on the day before the Jan. 6 riot and then directing the breach of the guarded perimeter while Donald Trump was still speaking one mile away?
That’s what Revolver News reporter Darren Beattie wants to know. It was Beattie who brought attention to the mysterious Ray Epps last fall, presenting video and other evidence to support the theory that the Arizona man was among many federal government operatives acting as provocateurs on Jan. 6.
In an article Thursday for Revolver News, Beattie breaks down the Times “puff piece,” which opens by describing Epps as “a man whose life has been ruined by a Jan. 6 conspiracy theory.”
The Times says Epps “has suffered enormously in the past 10 months as right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have baselessly described him as a covert government agent who helped to instigate the attack on the Capitol last year.”
But Beattie digs out the buried lede of the story by the “paper of record,” which is titled “It’s just been hell: Life as the victim of a Jan 6 conspiracy theory.”
The Times refers to a text message Epps sent to his nephew describing how he “orchestrated movements of people” to the Capitol after Trump’s speech.
Beattie, providing a video compilation (embedded below) of Epps “orchestrating movements,” wonders what Epps said in that text and whether it at least hinted as his motive for driving all the way to Washington to direct people into the Capitol.
The Times apparently never asked Epps that foundational question.
And it apparently never occurred to Beattie or Moore that there is no there there, that the reference meant nothing sinister. Moore also didn’t explain why anyone should believe Beattie, a conspiracy theorist who was told to resign from a federal commission after spouting bogus Capitol riot conspiracy theories.
Instead of fact-checking anything Beattie said about Epps, Moore quoted him uncritically claiming that the Times is “kicking off a massive damage control campaign to make any unsanctioned ideas about Epps too toxic and dangerous to print.”
Moore found another less-than-trustworthy source to attack Epps for an Aug. 4 article:
A Jan. 6 defendant who faces decades in prison on charges related to the Capitol riot wants to know why the Arizona man he claims tried to recruit him to go inside the Capitol – and is seen in numerous videos doing the same – is not “on the stand to answer the tough questions.”
“Why is Ray Epps not in jail for inciting the crowd or obstruction of Congress or seditious conspiracy?” writes Sean Michael McHugh, a California business owner and father of four, in a letter published by the Gateway Pundit.
“Where is equal application of the law?” McHugh asks. “Who was he there with? What were his motives and who does he work for? Why did he keep repeating that we need to go inside not only a day before January 6th but even after being met with police force outside the Capitol?”
McHugh faces decades in prison on federal charges, including assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon, obstruction of justice and physical violence on Capitol grounds. Officials with the U.S. Attorney’s office released photos they said show McHugh shouting into a bullhorn during the riot. Court documents say he was caught on police body camera spraying officers with an unknown yellow chemical and that he pushed a metal sign into a line of officers while shouting at them.
He has been imprisoned for more than a year in what he describes as “very inhuman conditions” he believes are designed to “make me plead guilty under duress.”
Yes, Moore thinks a violent thug like McHugh is a credible source — and even then, he undersold McHugh’s rap sheet (he also spent time in jail on a statutory rape conviction) nor did he explain how McHugh’s violence is connected to Epps. Indeed, Moore seemed to walk that back a bit by admitting that McHugh said he only had “coincidental contact” with Epps and “people who appeared to be working in concert” with him. Again, it still doesn’t make this criminal trustworthy.
Moore grumbled some more that folks weren’t buying into the Epps conspiracy theory in a Sept. 25 article:
Reacting to a Republican resolution demanding the Justice Department turn over documents related to suspected federal informant Ray Epps, a member of the Jan. 6 committee insisted during a House hearing there was nothing to see.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., was being pressed by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who noted that Epps was interviewed by the Jan. 6 committee and a transcript had been promised.
Raskin argued “none of the transcripts have been released,
“You guys are trying to make this poor schmuck who showed up to this protest into something a lot bigger than he is. OK?” Raskin said. “He’s just trying to survive, and he’s on your side. You don’t have many voters left, and you might want to try to hang on to them without demonizing and vilifying your own people. That’’s the Donald Trump way – sell everybody else down the road – unless you can get a pardon.”
Raskin concluded: “Now you guys are doing it to this poor Ray Epps. Leave that guy alone! Whoever he is.”
Epps is the one man who has been captured on video urging people to storm the Capitol on the day before the Jan. 6 riot and then directing the breach of the guarded perimeter while Donald Trump was still speaking one mile away.
He was one of three men whose name mysteriously disappeared from the FBI’s Capitol Violence Most Wanted list.
Moore then rehashed the claims from Beattie and McHugh without, again, bothering to explain why anyone should consider them to be trustworthy.