Look what The Intercept did to the statement from Grusch’s lawyers in their article

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , regarding (565) , issue (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

 Read More 

I’ve posted this in another thread, but I think it needs its own one.

All the other issues with the article aside – they’ve been deliberately misleading about the statement from Compass Rose.

Look what they did.

Here’s the ‘Quote’ in The Intercept article:

Coulthart’s comments would not be the first instance of misinformed media coverage of Grusch’s case. The law firm representing Grusch, Compass Rose Legal Group, issued a statement in June warning of “misstatements” in media reporting about the nature of their representation of Grusch, which they stressed was “narrowly scoped.”

“The whistleblower disclosure did not speak to the specifics of the alleged classified information that Mr. Grusch has now publicly characterized, and the substance of that information has always been outside of the scope of Compass Rose’s representation,” the statement says. “Compass Rose took no position and takes no position on the contents of the withheld information.”

And below is their actual statement:

The whistleblower disclosure did not speak to the specifics of the alleged classified information that Mr. Grusch has now publicly characterized, and the substance of that information has always been outside of the scope of Compass Rose’s representation. Compass Rose took no position and takes no position on the contents of the withheld information.

The ICIG found Mr. Grusch’s assertion that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress to be urgent and credible in response to the filed disclosure. Compass Rose brought this matter to the ICIG’s attention through lawful channels and successfully defended Mr. Grusch against retaliation.

The Intercept completely left out the 2nd paragraph, and tried to make it look like the case had nothing to do with information being inappropriately concealed from congress.

What an absolute joke. Caught red handed, fucksticks. This is deliberately misleading.

Here’s the link to the full Compass Rose statement – https://compassrosepllc.com/news/

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