I haven’t seen anyone mention this theory yet (doesn’t mean no one has, just saying I haven’t seen it) and the other side has been done to death, so here goes.

Grusch was prepared for his mental health to become an issue, and the NewsNation interview portion discussing it was deliberately withheld until it was relevant.

Coulthart knew the Intercept piece was coming, got out in front of it, got NewsNation and other sources ready for an immediate response too. The Grusch camp was beyond prepared.

The piece had nothing to actually do with his credibility and seems to have failed miserably. It has no bearing on the meat of his claims (is the argument here that he’s so delusional he’s hallucinating conversations with 40 witnesses?) and fails to even deal with Graves and Fravor.

It pissed off Veterans left right and center, and rightfully so.

It seems to have turned off not only vets suffering from various forms of treated and untreated trauma, but most people who understand that seeking help during a time of mental crisis is the correct and best path, not to mention a difficult one.

It had no bearing on the substance of any of Grusch’s claims. In fact, to be honest, it was just poorly written. In the end, in many ways it enhances his credibility unless you’re smooth-brained or not paying enough attention.


It raised the visibility of Grusch and the hearings.

It allowed the story to sit in the news cycle for longer during a lull where no new disclosure news is happening while Congress is in recess.

Particularly it may have galvanized more vets and active duty servicepeople, who are potential whistleblowers.

The whole thing was SO lame, ill-advised and ham fisted…

I am just wondering if it was deliberately placed or perhaps incited with the intention of having it fail.

Too far? Or possible?

submitted by /u/RedactedHerring
[link] [comments] 

Read More