Ray Epps’ Lawyer Demands Retraction and On-Air Apology from Tucker

Sounds like a precursor to a defamation suit. I guess Tucker will claim journalism, or free speech. Or better yet since truth is an absolute defense, maybe he’ll do like Fox is currently doing with Dominion and presenting evidence to support their statements as being factually true.

Oh. Yeah, that’s not at all what they doing with Dominion or Smartmatic. They’ve instead but forth no evidence to support the truthfulness of their statements.

Better yet, maybe again Tucker’s lawyers will say “he’s a known liar, and no one should take anything he says as fact or truthful”. At least that’ll be interesting.

... Did Epps' lawyer take the "Revolver challenge"?
Obviously not.

I'll be sure to clue Tucker onto those facts shown there.
No worrys.

##### Salty

ray epps innocent? LOL...

hes in several videos showing him the "rah rah" to the capitol. hes also part of the group that removed the barricades.

he was obviously in on it.

whether he was with the FBI remains to be seen.

ray epps innocent? LOL...

hes in several videos showing him the "rah rah" to the capitol. hes also part of the group that removed the barricades.

he was obviously in on it.

whether he was with the FBI remains to be seen. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Easy Peasy...show the video of Ray Epps, confirmed, tearing down the barricades. Do that and I'm behind you 100%. Otherwise you're talking trash, like most others.

... As we've mentioned so many times - you can get the
full "Ray Epps story" in TWO parts - over on the
Revolver website... Go take the "Revolver Challenge"
and read and see the clips.

THEN come back and let us know IF you agree or
disagree with things.

... What surely could be more fair than that?

#### Salty

Easy Peasy...show the video of Ray Epps, confirmed, tearing down the barricades. Do that and I'm behind you 100%. Otherwise you're talking trash, like most others. Originally Posted by 69in2it69

I can't find the part 1 thread link where I posted the 1st J6 revolver article. its not showing up in the search. I posted it in december 2021 even tho the article was released in october 2021.

Part 2 thread link
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1062702222

theres is a lot of pictures and videos. videos are linked to rumble.

warning: its long.

Meet Ray Epps part 1
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/me...e-u-s-capitol/

Meet Ray Epps part 2
https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/da...ors-january-6/

Ray Epps's lawyer can pack sand up his wazoo






bahahahaaa

From the OP: "Sounds like a precursor to a defamation suit."

Really? Since when exactly did it become "defamatory" to suggest someone might be working for the FBI? Does the OP believe that's a damaging smear to a person's reputation and career? And if so, wouldn't that mean the FBI were the "bad guys" on Jan. 6th... which, in turn, means the pro-Trump protesters were the "good guys"?

Is that what our resident legal expert 1blackman1 is trying to tell us when he suggests Ray Epps' lawyer may have an actionable basis to sue for defamation?

From the OP: "Sounds like a precursor to a defamation suit."

Really? Since when exactly did it become "defamatory" to suggest someone might be working for the FBI? Does the OP believe that's a damaging smear to a person's reputation and career? And if so, wouldn't that mean the FBI were the "bad guys" on Jan. 6th... which, in turn, means the pro-Trump protesters were the "good guys"?

Is that what our resident legal expert 1blackman1 is trying to tell us when he suggests Ray Epps' lawyer may have an actionable basis to sue for defamation? Originally Posted by lustylad

perhaps you could find it in your heart to take it easy on these lesser lights

logic and extrapolation are not their strong suits

Is that what our resident legal expert 1blackman1 is trying to tell us when he suggests Ray Epps' lawyer may have an actionable basis to sue for defamation? Originally Posted by lustylad

I hope he gets more bad advice from shithouse lawyers like him... because discovery will be a fcuking hoot.

Without getting into unnecessary verbiage. Defamation is a false statement regarding an individual stated in a way to suggest that it is factual which brings harm (by reputation or pecuniary loss) to an individual.

Stating that he was some kind of FBI mole that ginned up folks to commit crimes definitely qualifies as defamation. If it’s true, which is an absolute defense, the Tucker will assert that as being so and provide proof beyond conspiracy theories and conjecture.

Y'ah know, I have never bothered to find out who this Epps guy is because in the same sentence tuck pads is mentioned.

Maybe that might change in the future.

Without getting into unnecessary verbiage. Defamation is a false statement regarding an individual stated in a way to suggest that it is factual which brings harm (by reputation or pecuniary loss) to an individual.

Stating that he was some kind of FBI mole that ginned up folks to commit crimes definitely qualifies as defamation. If it’s true, which is an absolute defense, the Tucker will assert that as being so and provide proof beyond conspiracy theories and conjecture. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Epps was on the scene running his big dumb mouth. Tucker saying he was an FBI plant isn't defamation, not unless the FBI is a Criminal Organization. Besides Tucker is a member of the Press his statements are protected by the 1st Amendment.

We shall see how far being in the press as an excuse for stating lies that there’s no proof to support goes. I’m pretty sure the SC ruled that it’s not absolute. In fact, something that you know to be true, failed to do any due diligence in investigating or you have serious doubt of the truth of are specific exceptions to the freedom of the press protection. I’ve not read Times v Sullivan since Con Law but I’m pretty sure that’s about right.

We might get some interesting takes on how much one can hide behind that protection in the upcoming cases.

Without getting into unnecessary verbiage. Defamation is a false statement regarding an individual stated in a way to suggest that it is factual which brings harm (by reputation or pecuniary loss) to an individual.

Stating that he was some kind of FBI mole that ginned up folks to commit crimes definitely qualifies as defamation. If it’s true, which is an absolute defense, the Tucker will assert that as being so and provide proof beyond conspiracy theories and conjecture. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

what does inciting a riot qualify for? in terms of .. sentencing.