Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “CLAIM: U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff said the Jan. 6 committee will ‘scrub’ evidence before the Republicans take control of the House next year,” the Associated Press argues in a rebuttal presented as fact-checking.
“AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. Schiff, a California Democrat, did not say the panel is going to get rid of evidence. During an appearance on a CNN segment Sunday, he said that all of the evidence would be made public, but that the committee would ‘scrub’ any identifying personal information that could compromise peoples’ security before releasing it.”
That’s especially so if one considers the J6 Committee itself still posts the following solicitation on its website, something even a crack AP “fact checker” ought to be able to ferret out:
“REPORT INFORMATION ON THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK Chairman Thompson is interested in any information regarding the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. We respect your need to remain confidential and will use your contact information only to follow up with you regarding your submission.”
That becomes particularly relevant considering, as Gateway Pundit reports, attorney, former Department of Defense official and Epoch TV host Kash Patel documents FBI Director Christopher Wray lied in his committee testimony when he swore under oath that “the FBI never instigated or helped the January 6 protesters commit crimes [and] the FBI had no evidence that January 6 was going to happen.”
Who were these “confidential informants” giving the committee insider information? And how are we to determine what, if anything, their motives had to do with an overlapping confidential relationship with investigators? It’s an old standby tactic (as seen at Malheur (“15 confidential sources”), with the Hutaree (“Informant in Mich. militia case got about $31,000”), and in the Whitmer “kidnap plot” ( “The FBI Allegedly Used At Least 12 Informants”), to name a few high-profile cases of the government setting up “low-hanging fruit” with provocateurs and then trying to lie its way out of it.
With American citizens accused of “insurrection” locked away like enemy combatants in Abu Graib/Guantanamo, how can we be certain all the accusers they have a right to confront are known if Schiff and his fellow agenda-driven Democrats have “scrubbed” their identities from duly elected Congressional Republicans? As we just saw with the predetermined conviction of Stewart Rhodes and fellow Oath Keepers, the “government refused to expose their operatives.”
It’s not like Congress can’t protect identities when there is a legitimate reason while retaining the power to compel testimony under oath. To assume Schiff and fellow Democrats are the only ones who can be trusted is an obvious political move to keep claims from being verified while the freedom of citizens hangs in the balance.
Instead, what Schiff is saying is that “privacy interests” trump the right to determine the truth. Just like we’ve seen happen in trying to get to the bottom of Hunter Biden lying on his Firearms Transfer Record to illegally procure a gun…
That AP is helping J6 Democrats get away with that is reminiscent of the way they and the rest of the “establishment media” declared an Office of Inspector General report had “cleared” then-Attorney General Eric Holder of prior knowledge for Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking.” As I pointed out at the time, there’s a distinction with a huge difference between saying “no evidence” was found and concluding that Holder was exonerated. That’s particularly true when two key witnesses declined to be interviewed (and were allowed to get away with it) and when the White House refused to produce internal communications by claiming it was “beyond the purview” of the investigation.
As I reported in January 2012, a full year after Mike Vanderboegh and I first broke the “Gunwalker” story, after Sharyl Attkisson had done her groundbreaking CBS News interview with whistleblower John Dodson, and both House Oversight and Senate Judiciary had been making headlines with their investigations, the Associated Press released its “Top Stories of 2011” and Fast and Furious was nowhere on the list.
Democrats have tried withholding information before, and then, as now, their excuses don’t wash. I’ll repeat what I wrote then:
Safeguards are established to ensure secure scrutiny of sensitive and classified information by Congress. The excuse that a committee with subpoena powers can’t be informed due to ongoing investigations is just that—and if allowed to stand means the Justice Department will become the sole arbiter of what the elected representatives of the American people will be allowed to know about alleged criminal activity within the executive.
House Oversight under their majority ignored pleas to investigate whistleblower allegations made over a year before Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by a “rip crew” and dropped “walked” guns at the scene (and let’s not forget ICE Agent Jaime Zapata). Had it listened and done its job and investigated, who knows how many people would still be alive?
Senate Judiciary may still be under Democrat cover-up control, but with Republicans taking over House Oversight, there’s a chance they may be able to conduct a real investigation (provided establishment Vichycons don’t order them to roll over). Their message to Schiff and obstructionist Democrats must be unequivocal:
No “scrubbing.” What you know, they will know. By subpoena, if you force the issue. And deliberately withholding information or otherwise sandbagging will result in contempt charges.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.