![Ray Epps' Lawyer: "My Client Is Definitely Not an FBI Agent,... [680x670 - 435KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/XFj5K2.png){kind=link}
That’s exactly what a fed would say.
That’s exactly what a fed would say.
...and I should know, because I am a former FBI agent."
...and I should know, because I *am* a former FBI agent."
Be very careful when reading the answers given by these people. They know how to deflect questions, especially how to "parse" their answers. The attorney denied that Epps was a "Federal Informant", but that leaves open a wide range of other possibilities. See, saying he isn't a "Federal Informant" might very well be true. But, OTOH, how about if he was an informant for a Non-Federal Agency? How about if he was a "Voluntary Informant" to an non-government activity which then fed instructions and information in both directions to/from the real perpetrators.
Then the (((lawyer))) says the key phrase "not to my knowledge". That covers a multitude of possible areas. Just because he "doesn't know" something (or says he doesn't know), does not eliminate facts from being present, it just gets him off the hook for that specific question -- it is less damning that saying "no comment" (which always means that the questions asked are on target).
The only effective way to ask questions is while the subject is undergoing vigorous torture including electrodes to the testicles, smashing of the small bones in fingers, toes and hand, and using a razor knife to slice through nerve endings then pouring sulfuric acid on the wounds.
Be very careful when reading the answers given by these people. They know how to deflect questions, especially how to "parse" their answers. The attorney denied that Epps was a "Federal Informant", but that leaves open a wide range of other possibilities. See, saying he isn't a "Federal Informant" might very well be true. But, OTOH, how about if he was an informant for a Non-Federal Agency? How about if he was a "Voluntary Informant" to an non-government activity which then fed instructions and information in both directions to/from the real perpetrators.
Then the (((lawyer))) says the key phrase "not to my knowledge". That covers a multitude of possible areas. Just because he "doesn't know" something (or says he doesn't know), does not eliminate facts from being present, it just gets him off the hook for that specific question -- it is less damning that saying "no comment" (which always means that the questions asked are on target).
The only effective way to ask questions is while the subject is undergoing vigorous torture including electrodes to the testicles, smashing of the small bones in fingers, toes and hand, and using a razor knife to slice through nerve endings then pouring sulfuric acid on the wounds.
I learned from the Chileans back in the 80's how to get everything in a few minutes with a plastic bag. And it doesn't leave any marks.
I learned from the Chileans back in the 80's how to get everything in a few minutes with a plastic bag. And it doesn't leave any marks.
What the fuck is that
What the fuck is that
"Please refer any questions to our attorney John Blischak," Epps wrote. "He will be happy to answer your questions, as I've been advised not to talk to anyone at this time."
When reached by phone the next morning, Blischak vigorously denied that Epps is a federal informant.
"He was interviewed by the FBI in Arizona," he said. "I was present during that interview, and unequivocally he is not an FBI informant."
Asked whether Epps is an asset for any government agency--law enforcement, intelligence, or otherwise--Blischak said, "Not to my knowledge."
Then why didn't Department of Justice officials deny any connections to Epps?
"Knowing the FBI as I do, they're not going to comment one way or another," Blischak said.
...
The Epoch Times asked whether Epps was under oath during his interview with the Jan. 6 Committee or with the FBI. Blischak didn't directly answer the question, instead explaining that when FBI agents interview individuals, they typically aren't under oath.
...
As to why his client hasn't been charged, Blischak exclaimed, "Because he's not guilty! He has a good attorney."
Blischak is a former FBI agent, working in Cleveland and then Arizona from 1974-85.
"Please refer any questions to our attorney John Blischak," Epps wrote. "He will be happy to answer your questions, as I've been advised not to talk to anyone at this time."
When reached by phone the next morning, Blischak vigorously denied that Epps is a federal informant.
"He was interviewed by the FBI in Arizona," he said. "I was present during that interview, and unequivocally he is not an FBI informant."
Asked whether Epps is an asset for any government agency--law enforcement, intelligence, or otherwise--Blischak said, "Not to my knowledge."
Then why didn't Department of Justice officials deny any connections to Epps?
"Knowing the FBI as I do, they're not going to comment one way or another," Blischak said.
...
The Epoch Times asked whether Epps was under oath during his interview with the Jan. 6 Committee or with the FBI. Blischak didn't directly answer the question, instead explaining that when FBI agents interview individuals, they typically aren't under oath.
...
As to why his client hasn't been charged, Blischak exclaimed, "Because he's not guilty! He has a good attorney."
Blischak is a former FBI agent, working in Cleveland and then Arizona from 1974-85.
(post is archived)