During a Tuesday hearing, Senator Ted Cruz, likely attempting to recover from his remarks about the Jan. 6th protesters, grilled Jill Sanborn, the assistant director of the FBI’s national security branch, over a man named Ray Epps and the theory that the FBI was involved in what took place on that day.
Cruz, beginning with a reasonable question, said:
“A lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on Jan. 6. My question to you -- and this is not an ordinary law enforcement question, this is a question of public accountability — did federal agents or those in service of federal agents actively encourage violent and criminal conduct on Jan. 6?”
Sanborn refused to respond directly to the question, saying that she would not divulge “sources and methods.”
Then, following up on his original question, Cruz first stated that a man named Ray Epps was captured on video rousing people to break into the Capitol and asked, “Ms. Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?”
Again, refusing to answer the question, Sanborn replied with the ever-evasive “Sir, I cannot answer that question.”
Watch the back and forth here:
Tucker Carlson, one of the few mainstream figures who has stayed on top of the events of Jan. 6th and has positioned himself as directly opposed to the Swamp, then jumped in, pointing out just how odd it is that the FBI won’t deny it was involved in riling people up to storm the Capitol. He said:
“Did you hear that? Cruz asked, ‘Did any FBI agents or confidential informants, crimes of violence on January 6th?’ That’s what he asked. The obvious answer is are you kidding? ‘Of course the FBI isn’t secretly committing crimes of violence, that’s insane, we’re a federal law enforcement agency, not the Tonton Macoute. Next question, please.’
That’s what she should have said, but that’s not what she said. Innstead, she replied, ‘I can’t answer that.’ But of course Jill Sanborn can answer that and she should be forced to answer that immediately. ‘No sources and methods can be revealed.’ Just answer the question. Did they participate in violence or not, why is that hard?”
Then, at the end, he added:
“It tells you a lot [that she wouldn’t deny Cruz’s charges]”
Watch him here:
Tucker is right, were the FBI innocent (or, more likely, were Sanborn not worried about being drawn up on perjury charges) Sanborn could have responded forcefully and immediately, clearly stating that the FBI was not involved in framing Trump supporters and riling them up, tricking them into storming the Capitol.
But, of course, that’s not what Sanborn said. She didn’t deny the charge that the FBI was somehow involved in either Jan. 6th nor did she deny that it employed Ray Epps. As Tucker correctly points out, that refusal to deny Cruz’s charges is important, as she surely would have denied the charges were the FBI innocent.