Grusch’s testimony doesn’t mean as much as you think it does

“But Grusch testified under oath.”

Yes. When you take an oath, you promise to tell what you believe is the truth, and nothing else. Perjury means that you knowingly lied. It’s an important detail that many people seem to willfully ignore because it makes “Grusch said it under oath” a lot less powerful because the things he told Congress was based on claims he heard from others. Which means that if he believes it, or can convince everyone else that he does, he hasn’t committed perjury.

“The ICIG said that his findings were urgent and credible.”

Well, yes, but actually no. My understanding is that Grusch reported to the Inspector General that information was being withheld from Congress. Civillian oversight over the military is an important matter, and the Inspector General found his claims that information was being misheld credible based on his background and character. Information being withheld from Congress is a serious and urgent matter. I have not been able to find a single piece of evidence that the Inspector General called his claims of UAP retrievals credible. If it’s out there, feel free to enlighten me.

I’d love to have my mind changed. But so far, I haven’t been convinced.