One thing I keep reading and hearing over and over again is that David Grusch’s claims are nothing more than that… claims. People want hard evidence which is more than understandable, but we must also consider the nuance of this on several accounts.

1.)He is trying to blow the whistle legally, meaning he cannot just release everything to the world considering the potential threats to national security amongst other things. (Remember Edward Snowden and what a nightmare shit show that was for him? I dont blame Grusch for being cautious and not to mention responsible.) There is no telling what he knows that our adversaries could use against us.

2.)He must report to the inspector general under the whistleblowers protection act so all of the relevant and sensitive information is in their hands in accordance with our law. The first hand witnesses that Grusch mentions have also met with the inspector general and testified. Those meetings are behind closed doors which is one of the things they kept referring to during the congressional hearing. We may get to see a steady stream of disclosure soon, but it’s still going to be diluted for all of us plebs.

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

Read More