I am new to the sub but not to the subject. My area of knowledge is politics. I would be a skeptic if not for personal experience. I humbly submit my thoughts on what I think is a complicated incident. It may not be bad for the disclosure movement in the long run. These thoughts have caveats but lets keep the word count down:

1-Klippenstein is a journalist I personally respect(ed). The most frustrating part is seeing him engaging in the troll shit on something I think is important.

He tweeted out asking for information about Grusch during the hearings. Did NOBODY defend Grusch to Klippenstein? They certainly did, on the record, to The Debrief. Doesn’t help that the intercept has a spotty history protecting whistleblowers.

2-The most egregious part of the article for me was the equation of ptsd with insanity.

If there was also evidence of his unsound mental state at work in 2022, for example, then the other information might be relevant. But there is instead only police reports of a career intelligence officer with an alcohol problem and dead friends. If you have people saying he’s crazy then print that. Don’t use family incidents to insinuate that he is crazy.

3-This information was obtained legally, and was going to come out eventually.

This is the area where I disagree with reddit. It was going to come out. He found the guys address and did an FOIA like he always does. Did he get a tip after asking his 500K followers? Probably. Is he letting himself be used by these people? Arguably. But the process he describes for obtaining the information seems to be accurate.

4-It might be neutral/good it came out this way.

Assuming Grusch is correct he will soon be one of the most famous people in the world. I believe it is better the information l come out now via the intercept than in the Fall via WaPo when we are trying to get the schumer-rounds amendment passed into law.

-Fin Thanks for reading and eager to discuss!

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

Read More