@ufouapam Dave is the real deal. JBS Haldane stated:
“Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.”
So you are seriously saying that he thinks he has spoken to a multitude of people in a classified setting who are all wrong or mistaken. Including having seen documents and video material. You may have an opinion on DG but that’s all it is respectfully, an opinion. DG states, under oath that he has seen the classified evidence. Unless you are in a position to know. You don’t. You’re still entitled to your opinion however.
The IC IG quotes are real. The claim that they are Grusch’s cases is not.
The April–September 2022 IC IG report does say a Sept 1, 2022 reprisal investigation was unsubstantiated, and that the complainant read a contractor into a program without authorization. It also says 7 urgent-concern filings that period: 1 met the ICWPA threshold, 2 were forwarded anyway, 4 did not.
That reprisal summary is about an ODNI employee delaying security approval for a classified research project. Grusch’s public May 25, 2022 filing is about an NGA/UAP Task Force officer, a July 2021 DoD IG disclosure on UAP info withheld from Congress, and later clearance actions. Same year and the word “reprisal” is not an ID. These summaries are anonymized.
Counsel asking the IC IG to facilitate contact with SSCI/HPSCI is normal pleading, not proof the filing failed the threshold. The Debrief reported the IG found it “credible and urgent” in July 2022 — Grusch’s account, not an IG document naming him. If true, his filing fits the one that met the threshold, not the failures.
No criminal case follows from an anonymized security-violation finding, and Grusch testified to Congress in July 2023. The excerpts are accurate. Calling them a smoking gun overreads them.
You are either being obtuse or have misunderstood the chain of events. David takes his concerns to the ICIG and decides to become a whistleblower. Following that classified briefing, he seeks through the DOPSR process a review of the information he would like to make public. On review he is cleared to talk about the items he has to date made public. My original point stands however. If he had lied in a public setting I. E. The 2023 congressional hearing, the ICIG would know this and likely have chosen a path of rebuking him, which has not happened.
From Grok: Yes. The question mark makes “Show me the prison cell?” a question in writing.
Grammatically it is an imperative (“show me…”) turned into a request. In speech that is common: the rising intonation and the “?” ask someone to do something, rather than using a full interrogative like “Will you show me the prison cell?” or “Can you show me the prison cell?”
So it is a question in form and intent, even though the verb is in command order.
@MickWest Good of you to respond. Do you not think that the ICIG would be able to differentiate between a truth and a falsehood and if he was mistaken then would they have not withdrawn his security clearances if he’s so deluded? @ChrisUKSharp@MvonRen@dennis_asberg@DrBeaVillarroel
@bicbradley@TheRabb1tHole1 Holograms don’t bring buildings down. 10s of thousands of gallons of kerosene will be the precursor followed by the melting steel and destabilisation it brought about.