‘I Can’t Go into Sources and Methods….’

 

There is truly an extraordinary exchange between Ted Cruz and the FBI’s Jill Sanborn in a Senate hearing. Ted Cruz repeatedly asks Miss Sanborn about Ray Epps and other possible FBI agents’ involvement promoting the January 6 riot in the Capitol.

Video shows Ray Epps, among other things, encouraging unlawful entry into the Capitol building, yet he has never been prosecuted. Why?

Under Ted Cruz’s repeated questioning, Ms. Sanborn repeatedly states, “I can’t answer that.” I suppose she hopes you will think that she is saying that she does not know. However, she precedes the litany of “I can’t answer that” responses by saying that she is “can’t go into sources and methods….” What does that tell us? Her “I can’t answer that” is all about sources and methods, not any lack of knowledge.

As I hear her testimony, her “I can’t answer that” is because it would reveal “sources and methods.” Who sources and methods? The FBI’s, of course. In other words, I hear her answers as essentially admitting that the FBI was involved in encouraging the January 6 unlawful entry into the Capitol building.  Here is the video:

.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 59 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    David Carroll: Her “I can’t answer that” is all about sources and methods, not any lack of knowledge.

    Ted Cruz, call for a closed hearing.

    • #1
  2. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Multiple defendants are said to have subpoenaed Epps.

    Here is an example:

    https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1478148243557081096

    Nothing about that shows on the docket:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59680220/united-states-v-caldwell/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

    • #2
  3. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    The GOP let the FBI get away with stonewalling.  Our GOPe sucks.

    • #3
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    So defund the FBI.

    I mean, stop grandstanding and do something. The New York Times (no friends of conservatives or the Trump administration) already confirmed months ago that the FBI had assets embedded in the protesters. Let’s not pretend this is new information.

    Wake me when the GOP actually finds its balls.

    • #4
  5. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    It’s one thing for government officials to conceal and obfuscate during Senate hearings, but when did it become the norm to come off as complete ignorant idiots in doing so:

    For example here is FBI’s National Security Division chief Matthew Olsen answering questions yesterdays Senate hearings:

    Brain Hurts GIF | Gfycat

    • #5
  6. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Has Epps been named as a witness in any of the criminal actions brought against the hundreds of defendants? 

    The FBI even went and arrested that one fellow back home in Arizona who entered the building late, took some selfies, and left when a cop told him to leave–no doubt a wild, desperate 7-minute non-rampage on his part. 

    If the feds had not bothered with most of the rioters and only focused on the few really bad actors, then maybe leaving Epps out of it would be reasonable.  But given their overall approach going from wanted posters to silence this omission requires an explanation.

     

     

     

    • #6
  7. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    The GOP let the FBI get away with stonewalling. Our GOPe sucks.

    As the minority party, there is a limit to what Ted Cruz and the GOP could do in this situation except ask pointed questions that to any rational person demonstrated that the FBI was speaking with forked tongue.  There should be limits on the “means and sources” excuse.

    • #7
  8. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Ms. Sanborn’s responses can be taken as the FBI was involved in the Capitol riot using both informants, provocateurs to include using agents as provocateurs. She did not deny that they were involved.

    The problem is that the Senate is not a law enforcement organization. The Senate can petition the DOJ to conduct a criminal investigation, and if there is enough evidence bring charges. Don’t count on the current DOJ to take time away from searching for parent domestic terrorists at school board meetings.

    • #8
  9. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    As the minority party, there is a limit to what Ted Cruz and the GOP could do in this situation except ask pointed questions that to any rational person demonstrated that the FBI was speaking with forked tongue. 

    I can’t help but think of all the Democrats were able to accomplish when they were the minority party from 2016 to 2018. Including getting a fraudulent “Russian Collusion Hoax” investigation going, knowing full well it was their party’s own candidate who committed the treason.

    Why is it that Democrats are able to act toward the destruction of the country when they aren’t even in power, and the Republicans can’t act to save the country even when they are?

     

    • #9
  10. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    The GOP let the FBI get away with stonewalling. Our GOPe sucks.

    The Republicans have now power beyond asking questions. What would you suggests they be doing?

    • #10
  11. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Have those people charged gotten legal help to defend their constitutional rights or has that help dried up because of intimidation of the legal beagles by the communists and the woke mob.

    • #11
  12. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    The GOP let the FBI get away with stonewalling. Our GOPe sucks.

    As the minority party, there is a limit to what Ted Cruz and the GOP could do in this situation except ask pointed questions that to any rational person demonstrated that the FBI was speaking with forked tongue. There should be limits on the “means and sources” excuse.

    This is the same Ted Cruz who referred to the rioters as “domestic terrorists,” yes? The Hell with him.

    • #12
  13. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    So defund the FBI.

    I mean, stop grandstanding and do something. The New York Times (no friends of conservatives or the Trump administration) already confirmed months ago that the FBI had assets embedded in the protesters. Let’s not pretend this is new information.

    Wake me when the GOP actually finds its balls.

    So, eternal sleep then? 

    • #13
  14. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    The GOP let the FBI get away with stonewalling. Our GOPe sucks.

    The Republicans have now power beyond asking questions. What would you suggests they be doing?

    Throwing sand in the gears as much as possible. Sometimes “inaction” is as good as action.

    Oh, you want something from us, Democrats? The answer is no.

    • #14
  15. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    This is overblown. First, there is an easy explanation. We know that groups like the Proud Boys and other potentially violent groups were at the 1/6 riot. It’s not fanciful to believe that the FBI has informants in those organizations and that identifying them would put them in danger.

    Cruz asked about “agents and informants” not just one or the other. That is the simplest explanation of why the Sanborn answered the way she did. Further, Cruz’s last question was pretty direct: did agents or informants or anyone else working at the direction of the FBI commit acts of violence on 1/6? Sanborn’s answer: no, not to my knowledge. That’s the answer that matters.

    So, did the FBI lie to Cruz? Maybe. Or there is a simpler explanation than false flag conspiracy theories. 

    • #15
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Good lord. Hatred of Trump will make “conservatives” justify anything.

    • #16
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    This is overblown. First, there is an easy explanation. We know that groups like the Proud Boys and other potentially violent groups were at the 1/6 riot. It’s not fanciful to believe that the FBI has informants in those organizations and that identifying them would put them in danger.

    Cruz asked about “agents and informants” not just one or the other. That is the simplest explanation of why the Sanborn answered the way she did. Further, Cruz’s last question was pretty direct: did agents or informants or anyone else working at the direction of the FBI commit acts of violence on 1/6? Sanborn’s answer: no, not to my knowledge. That’s the answer that matters.

    So, did the FBI lie to Cruz? Maybe. Or there is a simpler explanation than false flag conspiracy theories.

    Do you also have a “reasonable” explanation for the violations of constitutional right to a public speedy trial for those charged and incarcerated for what ordinarily would be a misdemeanor offense?

    • #17
  18. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Good lord. Hatred of Trump will make “conservatives” justify anything.

    I think we are probably dealing with something much more serious than hatred of Trump, maybe hatred of American Republic. Joe Biden’s speech yesterday.

    • #18
  19. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    Cruz asked about “agents and informants” not just one or the other. That is the simplest explanation of why the Sanborn answered the way she did.

    Seems too cute by half, parsing it as those who might be both agents and informers. In any case, didn’t Sanborn swear to tell the whole truth? (Honest question. I’m not familiar with the oath witnesses to a Congressional committee swear.)

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    So, did the FBI lie to Cruz? Maybe.

    Yes, we have so much reason to believe these officials never lie to Congress or courts.

    • #19
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I wish Cruz had asked how many were arrested immediately at the Capitol by police officers and what were the charges.

    • #20
  21. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    From USA Today.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/01/11/house-panel-debunks-jan-6-conspiracy-theory-touted-gop-senators/9178404002/  Ray Epps is the new Kracken.

    Within hours, though, the special House Committee investigating the Capitol insurrection debunked the conspiracy theory, disclosing that it had interviewed the Arizona man, Ray Epps, and that he had denied taking part in any such government operation.

    Epps has become central to a viral – and unfounded – conspiracy theory in recent months after widely circulated video of him exhorting pro-Trump supporters the evening of Jan. 5 to enter the Capitol the next day. At some point, some protesters began chanting, “Fed, fed, fed,” apparently suspicious that Epps was there trying to incite rallygoers on behalf of the FBI.

    • #21
  22. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Epps has become central to a viral – and unfounded – conspiracy theory in recent months after widely circulated video of him exhorting pro-Trump supporters the evening of Jan. 5 to enter the Capitol the next day. At some point, some protesters began chanting, “Fed, fed, fed,” apparently suspicious that Epps was there trying to incite rallygoers on behalf of the FBI.

    Why do you say “unfounded” and then cite the evidence showing Epps involvement? There is more evidence about Epps on the adjacent grounds of the Capitol than for any other identified individual. Are you really a lawyer?

    • #22
  23. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Epps has become central to a viral – and unfounded – conspiracy theory in recent months after widely circulated video of him exhorting pro-Trump supporters the evening of Jan. 5 to enter the Capitol the next day. At some point, some protesters began chanting, “Fed, fed, fed,” apparently suspicious that Epps was there trying to incite rallygoers on behalf of the FBI.

    Why do you say “unfounded” and then cite the evidence showing Epps involvement? There is more evidence about Epps on the adjacent grounds of the Capitol than for any other identified individual. Are you really a lawyer?

    I think that your beef is with USA Today, not me. 

    The next time we both come to a meet-up, I will show you my State Bar of Arizona card.  

    • #23
  24. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Epps has become central to a viral – and unfounded – conspiracy theory in recent months after widely circulated video of him exhorting pro-Trump supporters the evening of Jan. 5 to enter the Capitol the next day. At some point, some protesters began chanting, “Fed, fed, fed,” apparently suspicious that Epps was there trying to incite rallygoers on behalf of the FBI.

    Why do you say “unfounded” and then cite the evidence showing Epps involvement? There is more evidence about Epps on the adjacent grounds of the Capitol than for any other identified individual. Are you really a lawyer?

    I think that your beef is with USA Today, not me.

    The next time we both come to a meet-up, I will show you my State Bar of Arizona card.

    I thought those were your words. I wouldn’t bother to cite or contest anything printed by USA Today.

    • #24
  25. James Salerno Coolidge
    James Salerno
    @JamesSalerno

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Epps has become central to a viral – and unfounded – conspiracy theory in recent months after widely circulated video of him exhorting pro-Trump supporters the evening of Jan. 5 to enter the Capitol the next day. At some point, some protesters began chanting, “Fed, fed, fed,” apparently suspicious that Epps was there trying to incite rallygoers on behalf of the FBI.

    Why do you say “unfounded” and then cite the evidence showing Epps involvement? There is more evidence about Epps on the adjacent grounds of the Capitol than for any other identified individual. Are you really a lawyer?

    Gary didn’t even know who Epps was until a couple days ago. He doesn’t exactly follow actual news stories, only what the propagandists spoon feed him.

    • #25
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    From USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/01/11/house-panel-debunks-jan-6-conspiracy-theory-touted-gop-senators/9178404002/ Ray Epps is the new Kracken.

    Within hours, though, the special House Committee investigating the Capitol insurrection debunked the conspiracy theory, disclosing that it had interviewed the Arizona man, Ray Epps, and that he had denied taking part in any such government operation.

    Epps has become central to a viral – and unfounded – conspiracy theory in recent months after widely circulated video of him exhorting pro-Trump supporters the evening of Jan. 5 to enter the Capitol the next day. At some point, some protesters began chanting, “Fed, fed, fed,” apparently suspicious that Epps was there trying to incite rallygoers on behalf of the FBI.

    The committee, which is already filled with liars and frauds, says that we can believe them when they say Epps is not a fed.

    Sure.

    Are you really this gullible, or do you think we are?

    • #26
  27. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    From USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/01/11/house-panel-debunks-jan-6-conspiracy-theory-touted-gop-senators/9178404002/ Ray Epps is the new Kracken.

    Within hours, though, the special House Committee investigating the Capitol insurrection debunked the conspiracy theory, disclosing that it had interviewed the Arizona man, Ray Epps, and that he had denied taking part in any such government operation.

    Epps has become central to a viral – and unfounded – conspiracy theory in recent months after widely circulated video of him exhorting pro-Trump supporters the evening of Jan. 5 to enter the Capitol the next day. At some point, some protesters began chanting, “Fed, fed, fed,” apparently suspicious that Epps was there trying to incite rallygoers on behalf of the FBI.

    Congress-critters on both sides of the aisle are professional liars. And yet you believe them.

    More seriously, do you really this committee just accepts, “Nope, not me. I didn’t do nuthin'” from witnesses? How is mere denial by someone suspected of inciting the riot enough to say anything is “debunked”? If the committee has evidence beyond Mr. Epps testimony (or that of anyone else), they should release it.

    • #27
  28. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    James Salerno (View Comment):

    Gary didn’t even know who Epps was until a couple days ago. He doesn’t exactly follow actual news stories, only what the propagandists spoon feed him.

    His problem is the same problem with all other mainline “Republicans.” They only get their news and information from Democrat-approved sources like the Washington Post or CNN. They’d never be so low as to access, say, Breitbart or The Federalist or Daily Signal or any other “unapproved” sources. If they did, they might learn something. But they’re only getting absolutely slanted “news.” (i.e., propaganda.)

     

    • #28
  29. James Salerno Coolidge
    James Salerno
    @JamesSalerno

    If no feds incited violence on January 6th, there is no reason to not give a definitive no, because there would be nothing to hide.

    If what the feds say is true, then there is no reason to not arrest Epps as he is the only one on camera inciting violence.

    You have to be insane levels of stupid to buy any of this trash.

    • #29
  30. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    James Salerno (View Comment):

    If no feds incited violence on January 6th, there is no reason to not give a definitive no, because there would be nothing to hide.

    If what the feds say is true, then there is no reason to not arrest Epps as he is the only one on camera inciting violence.

    You have to be insane levels of stupid to buy any of this trash.

    Epps was inciting people to break into the capitol, but the committee says that’s no big deal. Which pretty much knocks the legs out of their beef with President Trump. And all the other Republicans they now wish to prevent from running for office again using a Civil-War era ruling.

    • #30