Подведение итогов. Проверка фактов. Вопросы и ответы, часть 2 с Тимом Макмилланом.

>Wow. That’s, that seems really important because, in many ways, a critic of this story might say much of this Grucsh’s testimony is hearsay or secondhand or things he’s heard or been told. But here, we’re reading that current members of the program spoke to the IGs office and corroborated the information Grusch had provided for the classified complaint. That seems critical.

If we could just get 5% of everyone who posted «but there’s no evidence!» yesterday to just read this one paragraph, I’d be happy. The story has been corroborated by multiple individuals within the program.

Witness testimony IS evidence.

There’s some sleight of hand going on here when discussing «the complaint.»

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) provides a way for whistleblowers to report issues «relating to the administration or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information,» «a false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the administration or operation of an intelligence activity,» and «reprisal or threat of reprisal» for making such reports. If the Inspector General deems a report to be «credible» and of «urgent concern,» they are required to forward to the Director, who in turn forwards the complaint to the House and Senate intelligence committees. In law, credibility means that information is «worthy of belief,» not necessarily true. While the ICWPA does not provide explicit guidance, one agency’s OIG website (specifically the GPO) provides an example that the complaint «contains reasonably detailed information» — in other words, the report has enough detail that one could determine whether it is potentially true.

The Debrief article describes two complaints made by Grusch, one in 2021 and a second in 2022.

The 2021 complaint is referenced in the unclassified version of the 2022 complaint, in which it claims that «in July 2021, Grusch had confidentially provided classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General concerning the withholding of UAP-related information from Congress.» Under the ICWPA, this would be a complaint regarding «[a] false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the administration or operation of an intelligence activity.» Note that there is no claim made that the 2021 complaint was deemed «credible and urgent» by the Inspector General or that it was forwarded to the Director. By definition, assuming it is being characterized correctly, it would meet the definition of an «urgent concern.» That would imply that it was not «credible.»

The 2022 complaint is «a Disclosure of Urgent Concerns(s); Complaint of Reprisal…about detailed information that Grusch had gathered beginning in 2019 while working for the UAP Task Force.» A Complaint of Reprisal, according to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), would be related to «[a]n action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (e)(3)(B) in response to the employee’s reporting an urgent concern pursuant to the terms of this act.» In other words, the 2022 complaint is claiming retaliation for the previous report made in July 2021. The 2022 complaint is the one that was deemed «credible and urgent.»

Also note that there are references to Grusch providing testimony under oath. This is also in reference to his second complaint. The article does not claim that he testified under oath regarding the veracity of information in the 2021 complaint. It’s actually telling that the article explicitly mentions that the 2022 complaint was made via a sworn statement (“I do solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing paper are true and correct to the best of my knowledge”) but does not make any such claim about the 2021 complaint.

In short, what it appears is being reported here is that Grusch attempted to make a report in 2021 about information being withheld from Congress. The Debrief article does not claim that this report was judged to be credible or resulted in any further action. Instead, it claims that «his identity, and the fact that he had provided testimony, were disclosed» resulting in «retaliation and reprisals.» This is the claim that was deemed «credible and urgent» and forwarded to Congress.

I am curious and hopeful but not sure where it will ultimately go given the quagmire of security layers that have to be crossed to get any definitive answers

People with hands on experience with this stuff have talked to the IG. All under oath and with real consequences if they’re found to be lying. That’s big news. I’m very excited to see where this all goes.

More people need to read this. It will stop a lot of speculation and bitterness.