In comment discussion with another redditor, this insight was gained.

However, that’s not what the story did. It only mentioned his PTSD in relation to an incident where he kept his security clearance when it typically would have been pulled. That is relevant because it directly contradicts Grusch’s claims about being persecuted for the investigation.

As we know David Grusch’s security clearance was revoked as an act of reprisal by the IC, preventing him from entering a SCIF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility) with lawmakers.

The new smear article is likely being published and spread as an attempt to justify revocation of DG’s security clearance and discredit his claims of reprisal.

Two truths to combat this misinformation campaign:

The timeline. David Grusch was appointed to work on the UAP task force after the events referenced. He was not only allowed to keep his clearance but went on to an investigatory role.

The claims of reprisal are beyond simple clearance revocation.

It seems to me this story is just a dirty delay tactic to keep him out of a SCIF with the House Intelligence Select Committee. Likely he was evaluated after such events and deemed acceptable to continue.

My question

Was he specifically selected to this role because of past incidents, making him “easy” to discredit for whatever reason?

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

Read More