6 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
UnSecret Archive's avatar

Comer could appoint a UAP panel or task force within the Oversight Committee, but is seems that he's not interested in pursuing any UAP action under the Oversight Committee, and would prefer it were responsibility of the House Science Committee.

It will be interesting to see what demonstrable actions Burchett, Luna, Burlison and Moskowitz make on this issue within the Oversight Committee in the new year. And if Comer maintains his support for the UAP issue, but prefers it outside of his committee.

Expand full comment
Matt Laslo's avatar

That's what Comer told us back in September - listen til the end part where he says he supports it but wants it under the Science Committee https://www.askapol.com/p/raw-audio-oversight-chair-comer-on?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2FComer%2520&utm_medium=reader2

Expand full comment
UnSecret Archive's avatar

Thanks Matt, I found that interview yesterday when I was combing through older posts! Creating a UAP panel within the Science committee makes sense to me if it's an investigation into UAPs themselves and their sightings. However, the UAP caucus is making the case that the withholding of information about possible UAP programs from Congress, and expending taxpayer money on these programs makes it an oversight matter. But (I think?) IC and DOD oversight would be the purview of the Intelligence and Armed Forces committees, a responsibility they would not be willing to give up to another committee. Add the fact that the Oversight committee is not entitled to security information from the IC and DOD, I foresee the UAP caucus getting caught in the middle with few options.

Expand full comment
ErrorError