Ahead of the final report from the House Jan. 6 committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) rallied to the defense of soon-to-be ex-Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) over leaks claiming controversy within the panel’s ranks.
The Washington Post recently reported that there is conflict among panel members over Cheney’s singular focus on bringing down former President Donald Trump. This, the article noted, comes at the expense of a broader and more fact-based investigation.
— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) November 28, 2022
Not so, Schiff told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday. He added that “at least I certainly hope not,” which is far from a concrete declaration that there are no rifts within the probe.
The congressman vaguely added that he desires for the final report to be “as broad and inclusive as possible.”
Schiff, also a fierce opponent of the former president, said members are deciding what should be included in the main report and what should be placed in the appendices that is “beyond the scope of our investigation.”
He further insisted that the final product would be hashed out in a “collaborative manner.”
The Post cited 15 current and former staffers of the Jan. 6 committee who spoke to the outlet anonymously. They reportedly “expressed concerns that important findings unrelated to Trump will not be available to the American public.”
The newspaper said many were “floored” when learning that the draft report focused almost entirely on the former president.
What is not surviving the cut to appear in the main body of conclusions, staffers said, are “many revelations” concerning failures of the “law enforcement and intelligence communities” to properly prepare for an event most knew was coming.
Another key element of the Post report is the view of staffers that Cheney is merely utilizing the committee as a stepping stone toward her political future — she has indicated that a run for the White House is possible.
Schiff refuted this view, saying that he never saw Cheney’s role in that light. Rather, he claimed, she has been an “indispensable” part of the committee.
A committee which, for the record, is conducting an “investigation” without cross-examination of witnesses, opposing evidence, or the slightest indication that there is anything waiting but a foregone conclusion.