EXCLUSIVE: Oversight Chair Comer says some UAP witnesses failed background checks

Still, Comer thinks whistleblower David Grusch is credible and anticipates hearings soon.

While UAP whistleblower David Grusch was vetted and found credible by the inspector general, House Oversight Committee James Comer says some of the other witnesses House Republicans wanted to testify on UFOs are being replaced after “some issues” were flagged during their congressional background checks. 

“It’s pretty amazing some of the background checks we’re getting back on some of these folks,” Comer exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “I know that we had to reshuffle the deck on a few witnesses because of some issues.”

While it’s still unknown why some potential witnesses are being replaced, from how Comer describes the nature of the problem, it seems they weren’t deemed security risks but rather political risks.

“An old trick in oversight is: whoever the minority witness is or whoever the majority is, first thing the other side does is background checks on ‘em to see if they’ve ever been accused of being a racist or if they have a felony,” Comer says. “99.9% of the time, nothing comes back.”

This seems to be that 00.1%.

Still, Comer says former intelligence officer Grusch seems credible to him and investigators. He says House Republicans hope to hear directly from him and the others “as quick as we can get the witnesses set up.” 

“So [Reps. Tim] Burchett and [Anna Paulina] Luna, on my committee, are the two that are kinda taking the lead in that,” Comer says. “It’s interesting. It’s not an issue I’m an expert in so I don’t know anything about it, but apparently Burchett and Luna are so they’re really excited and our staffs are real excited about it.”

Below is a transcript of my latest interview with Comer (conducted on 6-22-2023). Transcripts are usually temporarily paywalled, but Happy Fourth!

Matt Laslo: “UAPs? UFOs? Whistleblower?”

James Comer: “Yeah. So Burchett and Luna on my committee are the two that are kinda taking the lead in that. So, as quick as we can get the witnesses set up we’re gonna…”

ML: “What did you make of that report?” 

JC: “Um.” 

ML: “I mean, his claims are out of this world.”

JC: “It’s interesting. It’s not an issue I’m an expert in so I don’t know anything about it, but apparently Burchett and Luna are so they’re really excited and our staffs are real excited about it.”

ML: “Yeah?” 

JC: “We’re having to do background checks on some of the witnesses…”

ML: “Interesting.”

JC: “So it’s been an interesting...” 

ML: “Right?”

JC: “It’s been interesting. So, anyways…”

ML: “Is his story falling apart a little bit?”

JC: “No.”

ML: “No?”

JC: “No. We’re gonna do it.”

ML: “Interesting. Yeah?” 

JC: “There’s a lot of witnesses.”

ML: “Yeah–because he named a lot of people?”

JC: “It’s pretty amazing some of the background checks we’re getting back on some of these folks.”

ML: “Really? You can’t tell me, though?”

JC: “Well…”

*laughs—before long pause* 

JC: “I don’t know that.”

ML: “Yeah?”

JC: “I know that we had to reshuffle the deck on a few witnesses, because of some issues.”

ML: “Interesting.”

JC: “But I think that…” 

ML: “With classification stuff or…?”

JC: “Well, it just, you know. An old trick in oversight is: whoever the minority witness is or whoever the majority is, first thing the other side does is background checks on ‘em. To see if they’ve ever been accused of being a racist or if they have a felony or—you know what I mean.”

ML: “Interesting–so they’re not passing the smell test?”

JC: “99.9% of the time, nothing comes back.”

ML: “Yeah.”

JC: “You know? But some of these cats have got some pretty interesting background checks. So, anyways, we’ll see…”