Raw Story

Ray Epps, the former Oath Keeper militia member who was caught on video on Jan. 6, 2021, telling attendees of the "Stop the Steal" rally to march down to the U.S. Capitol building, was sentenced to a year of probation for his role in the riot that took place that day -- much to the chagrin of the MAGA faithful.

After video of Epps circulated, people in right-wing circles speculated without evidence that he must have been some sort of government informant since he was clearly trying to trick people into committing a crime. Now, his light sentence is only fueling that speculation further.

"The only guy who is on camera telling people to storm the Capitol on J6 and who got zero jail time for it is definitely not a fed," The Federalist's CEO Sean Davis wrote on X.

"It pays to be on the FBI payroll," wrote another X user.

"Grandmas from Indiana who didn't go into the Capitol: years in prison Ray Epps who's on camera and admitted to "orchestrating" the riot: probation But sure, J6 was totally not a Fed Op," wrote former Fox News contributor Monica Crowley.

Also read: Trump dealt loss as judge rules profane tape can play at E. Jean Carroll trial

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie also thinks Epps was an informant.

"Ray Epps, the man who directed people to go into the Capitol and privately claimed credit for orchestrating the Capitol breach, gets one year probation. Nothing to see here!" Massie wrote.

"Ray Epps' charges were theater to shake off the accusations of him being a fed. I now 100% believe he's a fed" wrote comedian Tim Young.

Even Donald Trump Jr. chimed in after Epps' sentencing.

"Ray Epps gets probation, a $500 fine and is able to phone into his sentencing?!? Are you fricken kidding me? Yea guys, he totally wasn't put there to incite things by the feds. Our country is screwed... the traitors in charge aren't even pretending anymore," he wrote.

Epps pleaded guilty in September to a misdemeanor after he was charged with "knowingly, and with intent to impede and disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business and official functions," and engaging "in disorderly and disruptive conduct in and within such proximity to, a restricted building and ground."

An independent journalist whose content is regularly shared by Donald Trump has posted a video which purports to show the activist being escorted by police out of a Nikki Haley town hall.

Laura Loomer, who has been floated by Donald Trump Jr. as a possible contender for an interim press secretary in a second administration for his father, said on Saturday that Haley "just called the cops" on her and had her "escorted out of her town hall in Iowa."

ALSO READ: ‘Official’ Trump calendar omits a critical detail

"I was literally just standing and her staff let me inside the event after they sent me confirmation of my tickets," Loomer wrote. She added that Haley "wants to be President and talks a big talk about how she’s going to use her heels to put dictators in their place, but she is so triggered by my presence, she had 2 police remove me from her event."

Loomer continued:

"How does Nikki Haley plan on dealing with Putin and Xi if she can’t even handle Laura Loomer? Nikki Haley clearly doesn’t support free speech. For someone who likes to pretend to be anti-dictator, she sure is acting like a dictator by using the police to have women removed from her events. Way to enforce the concept of weaponized government on the 3 year anniversary of January 6, Nikki!"

You can watch the video below or click the link here.

Rep. Lauren Boebert is getting skewered in rave reviews for the Colorado restaurant where cops were summoned Saturday over a reported fight between the Colorado Congress member and her ex-husband.

Miner’s Claim was flooded with Google reviews after unconfirmed reports that she publicly punched her ex-husband Jayson, which Boebert denies, went viral.

“Great Cosplay restaurant - Rep Boebert pretends to be decent human,” one review reads. “Enjoy ur elected officials Colorado.”

Boebert denied punching her ex in a statement to the Denver Post, saying, “I didn’t punch Jayson in the face and no one was arrested.”

Her ex-husband told the Colorado newspaper he does not want to press charges as, “Her and I were working through a difficult conversation.”

Miner’s Claim, located in Silt, sits in the congressional district Boebert announced last month she’ll abandon in the 2024 election, opting to run instead in the more conservative District 4.

ALSO READ: I’m an octogenarian suffering in the job market. I feel your pain, Joe Biden.

The eatery did not respond to a request for comment from Newsweek, which was first to report the reviews.

Diners over the weekend championed the eatery’s “atmosphere” where patrons could expect servers to “roll with the punches.”

“Come by if you want to see your pathetic excuse of a congressional representative get into a public fight with her husband,” reads one review.

“Come for the exquisite fine dining and drink specials, but stay for the Congressional Fight Club,” reads another. “There is a 9/10 chance you will be interviewed by CNN or TMZ about what you saw.”

The Missouri school board that tried to pull Black history courses was defeated this week by diversity advocates who say the battle has only just begun, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Friday.

After the Francis Howell School District board's move to drop Black History and Black Literature courses caused a national uproar, members agreed to reinstitute classes upon approval, according to the report.

The new curriculum must be "largely politically neutral," board President Adam Bertrand and Superintendent Kenneth Roumpos said, a statement that caused alarm among those who fought the initial action.

"Black History and Black Literature cannot be taught from a ‘politically-neutral’ perspective," replied Heather Fleming, founder of the Missouri Equity Education Partnership, in a Facebook post. "Our entire experience in America has been impacted by socio-political movements."

Writes reporter Blythe Bernhard, "Advocates for diversity in education said they will not back down."

Also read: 'Sit this one out': Maine Sen. Susan Collins hit by blowback over her Trump ballot outrage

The uproar arrived after the board voted to rescind the district’s 2020 anti-racism resolution that was adopted in 2020. The St. Louis Post Dispatch notes more than 3,350 people signed a student-led petition to reinstate the courses.

Donald Trump spent Christmas Eve ranting on his personal social media site, but his engagement seemed low as normal people spent the evening with family, friends or caroling in church.

Instead, Trump posted one rambling rant, spraying conspiracy theories like Aqua Net across his hair. "Crooked Joe Biden," "Crazy Nancy Pelosi," "Derranged Jack Smith," and demanding the House Select Committee that investigated the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attack be prosecuted for "destroying and deleting all of their evidence."

Trump has already been told by a judge once that there was no destroying or deleting of evidence. Still, he continues.

READ MORE: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

It's unclear if it was due to the slow "re-truth" rate or lack of "likes," but about 10 minutes later, Trump posted another rant, this time in all capital letters. This time he attacked the House Select Committee saying the same thing about them deleting evidence.

Thirty minutes after the first post, and about 15 minutes after the first all-caps rant, Trump posted another all-caps status attacking Biden and Smith again using the same language about Smith being "deranged." He repeated his signature language about being a victim and being persecuted.

He ultimately ends the internet screaming with: "IT’S CALLED ELECTION INTERFERENCE. MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

The strategy worked, his supporters devoured the all-caps rant over his longer rambling diatribe with nearly twice the "re-truths."

He reposted an outdated poll and seems to have backed away from the internet after that.

The post came after Trump delivered his 2023 Christmas message that God will help him win in 2024.

Last week, the Supreme Court turned down special counsel Jack Smith's plea to rush Donald Trump's appeal straight to the High Court so that it can be resolved quickly.

According to columnist Ron Brownstein, the Supreme Court isn't stupid, they know exactly what Trump is trying to do, they simply have to choose whether or not to be complicit.

Political analyst Julian Zelizer began the conversation by saying that Trump's goal isn't to win but to delay. If he can delay past the 2024 election, then he can demand that his attorney general stop his prosecutions in 2025.

READ MORE: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

"As long as the case is resolved before the election, that is the key, really," said Brownstein. "Trump's goal is to have it not be resolved. We see in polling that it may sound incredible, given how much information is out there, but there is a significant slice of voters that say that a conviction might matter to them more than an indictment for Trump."

He explained that people like Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the Supreme Court justices "live in the real world. They know Trump is trying to push this out as far as he can, so it does not resolved before the election. And they have a choice to make: whether they want to be complicit in that or not."

He said that Roberts is desperate for a unanimous decision on things like this that speak to the future of the power of the presidency, but it's a long shot. He said that the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision was the beginning of distrust of the High Court in the eyes of the American public.

"I think he would like to avoid that," Brownstein continued. "Maybe the way to do that is in essence join these two rulings. I'd also point out that, you know, the idea that — clearly, the indictments of Trump affect the nomination. Joe Biden's approval rating is under 40 percent, and the two of them are running even. The idea there is no resistance, no cost to Trump for his behavior isn't supported by the facts."

See the video below or at the link here.

Supreme Court knows what Trump is doing, and can choose whether to be complicit: columnist youtu.be