J6 Committee Destroyed 1.5 Trillion Bytes Of Evidence | It’s A Felony

Timing: Trump just got the legal power to subpoena J6 Committee evidence

BY  10.8.23

Recent reports suggest a concerning development surrounding the January 6 committee. Jesse Watters of Fox News has claimed that the committee tasked with investigating the events of January 6, may have destroyed nearly half of its evidence.

According to Watters, as former President Donald Trump prepares for his upcoming trial related to the January 6 charges, he will have the legal power to subpoena vital documents and videos relevant to the case. This means the January 6 committee, which has been collecting documents, transcripts, and hours of video depositions over the past two years, would be obligated to present any materials that Trump’s defense team requests. However, Watters alleges that the committee has already destroyed up to 50% of its findings.

This raised eyebrows, considering the significant amount of data the committee has amassed. “The Democrat-run January 6 committee is missing one and a half terabytes of data,” Watters stated. Such a volume of data could include critical records highlighting security lapses on Capitol Hill, video depositions from Trump’s cabinet members, as well as crucial emails and text messages.

The broader implication is that the committee might have selectively released only the information that aligns with the Democratic narrative while potentially hiding or erasing evidence that contradicts it. Such actions, if true, would undoubtedly undermine the public’s trust in the integrity and transparency of congressional investigations.

Historically, once a congressional investigation is concluded, all evidence and findings are preserved and transferred to the archives. Other investigative committees, like those for the Benghazi and 9/11 incidents, have maintained all their records. As Watters pointed out, “losing or destroying committee evidence is not common practice,” adding that it’s a felony to destroy such materials.

The ramifications of these allegations could be substantial. If Trump is re-elected, members of the January 6 committee might face legal consequences for their supposed actions.

August 11, 2023 | 2 Comments »

Leave a Reply

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. It is true that an honest judge would not allow a criminal trial when it can be proven that so much exculpatory evidence has been lost or destroyed.

    Here is information on Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee as given by Kash Patel in discussion with Sebastian Gorka:

    “Judge Chutkan, for those who don’t know, represented Burisma, Hunter Biden’s fraudulent consulting firm, she was a lawyer at the same law firm with Hunter Biden. But Seb, let’s put that aside. What other matters are there for her recusal? In 2017 when Devin Nunes and I were running the Russiagate investigation, we figured out who paid for the Steele dossier. Fusion GPS, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele millions of dollars and they laundered it through the FBI and the FISA court to unlawfully surveil Donald Trump. That’s big-time stuff.

    “On the eve of us winning that disclosure, before the world knew, Fusion GPS took us to federal court and that case landed in JUDGE CHUTKAN’S COURT ROOM. … After a month of heavy litigation where Judge Chutkan knew the ins and outs of Fusion GPS, our proceedings, all possible witnesses, etc., when she could not prevent us from prevailing, she recused -on her own- from that case. Why?”

    “We found out her law firm, Boies Schiller, represented Fusion GPS. The very client that was in front of her in federal court was one of her former clients. That is rule #1 for disqualification.”

    “GORKA: “Boies Schiller Flexner is the same company where Chutkan and Hunter Biden worked!”

    PATEL: “You gotta ask yourself, Seb, how come it took Chutkan a month [to recuse herself]? … She wanted to block the bank records.

    “Imagine if we never found out who paid for the dossier. … She set the precedent. She cannot neutrally and arbitrarily preside over Donald Trump’s criminal trial when she recused herself from the very representation of the Democratic entrenchment: the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, because she was so biased because of her prior representation from Boies Schiller.

    “How could she possibly be allowed to stay on this case? And it wasn’t us, Seb. We got her off because of her own history. That precedent is what Donald Trump’s lawyers must apply this week.”

    I hope Kash Patel called Donald Trump to tell him so.

    The information and transcript above is from: