Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is Lying or Obfuscating

I know this has been discussed, but I wanted to distill this information further. In Gillibrand’s interview that dropped this morning with “City & State New York,” this statement regarding David Grusch’s testimony garnered the most attention: “I have no ability to verify that testimony because we’ve not been told of any such programs. We’ve asked for all information related to all programs and have not been given that detail.”

Marco Rubio explicitly stated to News Nation that first-hand witnesses have come forward (even before the whistleblower protections were in place) to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Notably, Gillibrand is a member of this committee. Rubio hinted that many of these first-hand witnesses were the same people Grusch interviewed. Grusch is on the record saying the first-hand witnesses he interviewed provided him with classified documents and photographs to corroborate their testimony. Therefore, it stands to reason the SSCI also has these documents and photographs. This is further backed up by the extraordinary language included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which is written by members of the SSCI.

(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, notify the Director of such possession; and (2) not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, make available to the Director for assessment, analysis, and inspection–

(A) all such material and information; and (B) a comprehensive list of all non-earth origin or exotic unidentified anomalous phenomena material.

(e) Liability. –No criminal or civil action may lie or be maintained in any Federal or State court against any person for receiving material or information described in subsection (d) if that person complies with the notification and reporting provisions described in such subsection.

Lastly, Grusch clearly stated many of these first-hand witnesses also testified to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. That is why he found Grusch’s claims “credible and urgent.” To me, it seems fairly obvious the SSCI has access to the same or similar classified information (documents, photographs, etc) that was provided to the Inspector General.

Based on all of this information, I’d like to address Gilibrand’s two central claims:

Claim 1: “I have no ability to verify that testimony because we’ve not been told of any such programs.”

This is in direct conflict with Rubio’s public statement that, in fact, many first-hand witnesses have come forward to the SSCI. And since we know they have come forward to the SSCI, it is safe to assume these first-hand witnesses provided some type of tangible documentation to verify their claims. Photos and official documentation, in my estimation, meet the threshold of verifying testimony in a committee setting. (Busting down doors and confiscating craft is the only full-proof way to unequivocally verify any of this.) Moreover, it’s hard to believe the Intelligence Authorization Act would include such detailed language about “non-earth origin” materials if the SSCI had not been informed about such programs.

Claim 2: “We’ve asked for all information related to all programs and have not been given that detail.”

Once again, this is in direct conflict with what Rubio has publicly stated. While I don’t recall Grusch or Rubio affirming the SSCI received official documents and photographs to corroborate the first-hand testimony its staff/members received, comprehensive analysis suggests a high likelihood that the committee did, at some point, receive such evidence.

In short, Gillibrand’s claims appear to be either straight up false or highly misleading. If we are to take her statement at face value, we’d have to assume that A) Rubio is lying or B) the SSCI heard testimony from first-hand witnesses but did not receive any official documentation or photographs to substantiate the claims, spanning a period of at least two years up to the present.