David Grusch's DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint

[Rick Robson]

I think the point Nolan is trying to make here is if we find a piece of material that is (1) clearly engineered and (2) has significant deviations in stable isotope ratios it is probably not engineered by humans, since humans currently have (or had, when the piece was found) no application for this deviating stable isotope ratios (so why put in the effort).

Those were the points he's made on various occasions.

In that case, it's either engineered by someone else, or it came from a different star system (assuming that naturally occurring stable isotope ratios are formed inside a star and deviate from one star system to another). You just added another interesting possibility: It has been in space for quite a while.

Good and interesting point you make here, either Nolan is right about that piece of material being clearly engineered by someone else or he's dealing with material come from another star system. Anyway, more further studies are supposed to be carried out until release of a definitive version for peer review, let us wait and see that paper.

 

[Amathia]

Yes, so isotope ratios that significantly deviate from those in nature only become interesting when a piece of material is clearly engineered, not some debris that could have come from a meteorite.

I think the point Nolan is trying to make here is if we find a piece of material that is (1) clearly engineered and (2) has significant deviations in stable isotope ratios it is probably not engineered by humans, since humans currently have (or had, when the piece was found) no application for this deviating stable isotope ratios (so why put in the effort).
In that case, it's either engineered by someone else, or it came from a different star system (assuming that naturally occurring stable isotope ratios are formed inside a star and deviate from one star system to another). You just added another interesting possibility: It has been in space for quite a while.

To be fair, in the interview with Lex Fridman, Nolan doesn't say he's ever been in possession of a material that was "clearly engineered". He states he's only ever had in his position chunks of metal, and some other possibly biological samples in his possession that he hasn't spent much time on.

In the case of one of the pieces of metal he discusses in the interview, he doesn't claim that a) it is clearly engineered, and b) has significant deviations in stable isotope ratios, which jointly together lead him to conclude it must have been engineered by someone else.

He rather seems to be reasoning that b) (the deviation in isotope ratios) allows him to infer a) (that it was engineered). That doesn't follow though.

It's one thing to be in possession of a clearly engineered artifact of some kind that possesses significant deviations in stable isotopic ratios, because that would require a good explanation, but that isn't the case here. What he has are pieces of metal that have deviations in the isotopic ratios. And since we have no good reason to assume from the outset that these pieces of metal have been engineered, they therefore may have a much more prosaic explanation.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Ah, this article from The Drive reminds me that the term used is actually "materiel"

Article:

What Is Foreign Materiel Exploitation?

While David Grusch's crash retrieval program claims remain up for debate, the U.S. Intelligence Community, including elements of the U.S. military like NRO and NGA, is very much engaged in FME efforts that include the retrieval of flying objects, or parts thereof, from crash sites and other sources for further analysis and evaluation.

Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/aliens-or-not-secret-crash-retrieval-programs-are-a-very-real-thing

From the French, materiel refers to "military materials and equipment" - so a tank (or a spaceship) is materiel, not just made from bits of material.

Of course, such retrieval programs might only end up recovering bits of material. A recent example is the Long March stage that broke up over Texas.

Article:

The four-ton component of a Chang Zheng 2D 'Long March' rocket punched through the atmosphere on Wednesday over Texas at 17,000 miles per hour and disintegrated, two defense officials confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

Military officials have yet to find any debris from the rocket stage, however USNI News understands the debris field could be miles wide and several hundred miles long.

Source: https://news.usni.org/2023/03/09/chinese-rocket-that-delivered-military-spy-satellites-breaks-up-over-texas

 

[Rick Robson]

To be fair, in the interview with Lex Fridman, Nolan doesn't say he's ever been in possession of a material that was "clearly engineered". He states he's only ever had in his position chunks of metal, and some other possibly biological samples in his possession that he hasn't spent much time on.

Yea but that interview was made more than one year ago.

 

[Amathia]

Yea but that interview was made more than one year ago.

Sure. Here's an interview with him posted three weeks ago that discusses some of the same topics:


Source: https://youtu.be/e2DqdOw6Uy4


He's asked a very direct question about the best evidence for why he believes that the likelihood that we're being visited by aliens is 100%, his response is to simply look at what congress is doing in response to the subject.

He also states outright that he's never been shown anything directly nor does he expect at this point to ever be (by the government at least).

Here's another good interview from six months ago:


Source: https://youtu.be/ShX-WM5TiXc


I think if he actually had handled something that he was convinced could only have an extraterrestrial origin he'd have mentioned it instead of a nebulous appeal to what congress is doing.

 

[Rick Robson]

I think if he actually had handled something that he was convinced could only have an extraterrestrial origin he'd have mentioned it instead of a nebulous appeal to what congress is doing.

I don't know, what I find intriguing is Dr. Nolan's silence after Grusch's story blew up on the media.

 

[Rick Robson]

Here's another good interview from six months ago:

Source: https://youtu.be/ShX-WM5TiXc

Glad to hear you also watch Dr. John Michael Godier, he's been doing some very interesting interviews as well as offering some very good insights.

 

[John J.]

Yes, so isotope ratios that significantly deviate from those in nature only become interesting when a piece of material is clearly engineered, not some debris that could have come from a meteorite.

The problem is differentiating between the two. Tutankhamen's dagger is clearly engineered, from debris that came from a meteorite. I'm not aware of any isotopic analysis of Tutankhamen's dagger (the process, presumably involving thermal ionization, could be destructive) but it's reasonable to expect that such analysis would reveal non-terrestrial iron isotope ratios.

Nuclear reactor components can have their isotopic composition changed over time, mainly from neutron irradiation.
Constituent atoms in reactor components can be (literally) transmuted into other elements, sometimes represented by more than one isotope.
In fairness, many of these events will produce unstable isotopes (and induced radioactivity, a problem for the industry).

it's either engineered by someone else, or it came from a different star system

No, I don't think so. The example of similar oxygen isotopes on the Earth and Moon being used to support the giant impactor hypothesis was mentioned. The researchers were not entertaining the hypothesis that the Moon comes from outside the solar system, and it's unlikely they would have come to that conclusion had the ratios been found to be different.

This paper discusses the different hydrogen isotope ratios of different bodies (Earth, Mars, Vesta, S- and C-type asteroids, with some mention of comets believed to be from the Oort cloud) in the solar system:
"D/H ratios of the inner Solar System", Harris, L.J., April 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,
whole paper available here https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2015.0390

Anyway, drifting way off-topic.

 

[John J.]

Yea but that interview was made more than one year ago

As was his one paper on the subject; January 2022.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376042121000907?via=ihub

 

[ventsyv]

Why would the ICIG give this complaint the time of day if that were the case? I wouldn't suspect the ICIG to have found his complaint to be credible and urgent if that were the case.

It seems likely that Grush's access to classified info was indeed restricted, thus his complaint is credible. Once the ICIG investigates we'll know if it was a reprisal. It's possible that it was a reprisal but for a different reason. Maybe government officials thought he is nuts and didn't want him to waste their time.

Maybe they took his nosing about their business as a warning sign. Classified info is compartmentalized to prevent leaks. Asking about information that's not relavent to your jobs is considered a red flag.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Maybe they took his nosing about their business as a warning sign. Classified info is compartmentalized to prevent leaks. Asking about information that's not relavent to your jobs is considered a red flag.

We seem to have external confirmation of that from the recent war in Ukraine intel leaks, which Jack Teixeira has been indicted for.

Article:

Prosecutors also alleged that Teixeira's supervisors had in September and October 2022 and January 2023 caught him taking notes on classified material or viewing material not needed for his job, and admonished him to "cease and desist".[39]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Teixeira

 

[tobigtofool]

If an IG complaint is filed, it must be accepted and acted upon. A complaint can be dismissed by the IG without formal investigation if evidence supplied with the complaint is judged insufficient to show the alleged wrongdoing(s).

DoD IG (then presumably Sean O'Donnell), with whom the original disclosure was filed. They did not seem to think it was credible, and possibly took action against Grusch because of this (or, if his allegations are true, as a cover-up)

If a case must be accepted and acted upon, and the original filing was not, does that indicate Gursche may be telling the truth?

Your post is an absolute nightmare for me to read, since I'm somewhat acronym-blind!

I keep wondering why Instagram is so important

 

[Mendel]

If a case must be accepted and acted upon, and the original filing was not,

You have no grounds to claim that the original filing was not accepted or acted upon.
Grusch's ICIG whistleblower complaint (see post #2) does not allege that the DoD IG did not accept or act upon Grusch's filing. I except it would if he hadn't.

does that indicate Gursche may be telling the truth?

I don't see how it would.
If the DoD IG had dismissed the case, it would suggest there was nothing to it, i.e. that Grusch is mistaken.

 

[tobigtofool]

You have no grounds to claim that the original filing was not accepted or acted upon.

That is something Mick said, maybe I misunderstand?:

There are two IGs (Inspectors General) here.

DoD IG (then presumably Sean O'Donnell), with whom the original disclosure was filed. They did not seem to think it was credible, and possibly took action against Grusch because of this (or, if his allegations are true, as a cover-up)

Then he filed a complain about this with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Thomas A. Monheim

THAT is what is known to be urgent and credible, not the content of the original claim.

Ross seems to say there's more to this aspect, which we will learn soon, where the DoD complaint was inspected.

In the original quote, Duke mentioned that if an IG complaint is filed, it must be accepted and acted upon.

What does the IG did not seem to think it was credible mean? @mickwest

If the first IG didn't act on it, and they indeed are required to if they think its credible or not, and retaliation followed, that's pretty strong evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[Mendel]

@tobigtofool
We do not know what Grusch filed with the DoD IG. We do not know how the DoD IG responded.
It seems likely that that the DoD IG accepted the filing and generated a response, as is legally required of him.
Point 7 in Grusch's ICIG complaint is asking for Grusch to bring his "UAP-related concerns" before the Congress intelligence committees. This suggests Grusch was not satisfied with the DoD IG's response. (Maybe that is because the DoD dismissed his filing, but we don't know that.)

Given these known facts, I do not see any evidence of wrongdoing.

What we know is that Grusch didn't like some things he learned, and thought they were illegal. We know from Grusch's statements that he doesn't seem to have a lot of evidence for his TV claims that isn't hearsay or rumors. Whether there was wrongdoing depends on the evidence and the actual facts. Maybe Grusch is right, maybe he's not. We know he's not a lawyer, so his grasp of legalities may be flawed.

 

[LilWabbit]

We know from Grusch's statements that he doesn't seem to have a lot of evidence for his TV claims that isn't hearsay or rumors.

Indeed, and ironically the bulk of it is Bob Lazar's modern UFO lore regurgitated, including the bit about recovered alien craft material (which sounds like Lazar's 'element 115'). It's plausible Bob Lazar is one of the people mentioned in Kean's article as having worked on these secret recovery programs from whom Grusch has been hearing stuff.

 

[JMartJr]

If the first IG didn't act on it, and they indeed are required to if they think its credible or not, and retaliation followed, that's pretty strong evidence of wrongdoing.

Somebody who speaks lawyer feel free to correct this if I am wrong, but would not "looking into it, finding it to bewithout merit or lacking evidence, and dismissing it" constitute "taking action." (Please note that I am not asserting that this was done, I wasn't there.)

 

[Landru]

Somebody who speaks lawyer feel free to correct this if I am wrong, but would not "looking into it, finding it to bewithout merit or lacking evidence, and dismissing it" constitute "taking action." (Please note that I am not asserting that this was done, I wasn't there.)

Yes, no is a response.

 

[tobigtofool]

Yes, no is a response.

In general at the workplace if an employee files a complaint properly and the response is "no", but that's followed with limitations on your career path: that's retaliation.

I don't know how the military industrial complex handles it though. It seems like somehow they created a system where they can give people "red flags" for asking questions... which is a pretty big "red flag" for abuse at the workplace if you ask me.

 

[Landru]

In general at the workplace if an employee files a complaint properly and the response is "no", but that's followed with limitations on your career path: that's retaliation.

I don't know how the military industrial complex handles it though. It seems like somehow they created a system where they can give people "red flags" for asking questions... which is a pretty big "red flag" for abuse at the workplace if you ask me.

No, if the limitations are based on other factors (making outrageous claims not supported by evidence, mishandling of classified documents) that is not retaliation.

 

[tobigtofool]

No, if the limitations are based on other factors (making outrageous claims not supported by evidence, mishandling of classified documents) that is not retaliation.

Retaliation in the workplace typically refers to a situation where an employer punishes an employee for participating in legally protected activity.

If you have filed a complaint, whether it's about harassment, discrimination, safety violation, wage and hour violation, etc. you're typically protected from retaliation under employment laws.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for instance.

You're allowed to file a complaint about something at work and allowed to be wrong if you do it properly, without fear of reprisal.

Again, I don't know of those laws apply to the pentagon, and considering how liberally they talk about "red flags" it sounds like they don't.

 

[Landru]

Retaliation in the workplace typically refers to a situation where an employer punishes an employee for participating in legally protected activity.

If you have filed a complaint, whether it's about harassment, discrimination, safety violation, wage and hour violation, etc. you're typically protected from retaliation under employment laws.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for instance.

You're allowed to file a complaint about something at work and allowed to be wrong if you do it properly, without fear of reprisal.

Again, I don't know of those laws apply to the pentagon, and considering how liberally they talk about "red flags" it sounds like they don't.

There has to be a determination made that the actions rise to retaliation. No such determination has been made.

 

[tobigtofool]

There has to be a determination made that the actions rise to retaliation. No such determination has been made.

If you filed a legitimate complaint in good faith and then begin to notice a negative change in your treatment at work, such as being excluded from meetings, these could potentially be signs of retaliation.

Even if the complaint was found to be unfounded, as long as you filed it in good faith that is, you genuinely believed that there was a violation, you're typically still protected.

How your work handles this responsibility is up to your work, and how you handle complaints about retaliation is up to you, but by law you are protected even if your complaint is totally unfounded.

You can for example observe what you perceive to be harassment at work taking place between 2 other parties, file a complaint, turn out to be totally wrong, and not fear reprisal for filing that complaint in good faith, through the proper channels.

Again: the pentagon seems to operate above and beyond these laws - how could it not with confidentiality protecting it?

 

[Landru]

If you filed a legitimate complaint in good faith and then begin to notice a negative change in your treatment at work, such as being excluded from meetings, these could potentially be signs of retaliation.

Even if the complaint was found to be unfounded, as long as you filed it in good faith that is, you genuinely believed that there was a violation, you're typically still protected.

How your work handles this responsibility is up to your work, and how you handle complaints about retaliation is up to you, but by law you are protected even if your complaint is totally unfounded.

You can for example observe what you perceive to be harassment at work taking place between 2 other parties, file a complaint, turn out to be totally wrong, and not fear reprisal for filing that complaint in good faith, through the proper channels.

You didn't address my statement. No such determination of retaliation has been made.

 

[tobigtofool]

You didn't address my statement. No such determination of retaliation has been made.

Im not sure I understand what you mean, Im simply answering this question:

Somebody who speaks lawyer feel free to correct this if I am wrong, but would not "looking into it, finding it to bewithout merit or lacking evidence, and dismissing it" constitute "taking action." (Please note that I am not asserting that this was done, I wasn't there.)

DG maid the claim he was retaliated against.

They did not seem to think it was credible, and possibly took action against Grusch because of this (or, if his allegations are true, as a cover-up)

I am not up to speed with that aspect, just commenting on what constitutes it.

 

[Landru]

Im not sure I understand what you mean, Im simply answering this question:



DG maid the claim he was retaliated against.



I am not up to speed with that aspect, just commenting on what constitutes it.

In your opinion. As has been stated prior security clearance issues are not reviewable by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

 

[Mick West]

You can for example observe what you perceive to be harassment at work taking place between 2 other parties, file a complaint, turn out to be totally wrong, and not fear reprisal for filing that complaint in good faith, through the proper channels.

Sure, but it's a complicated situation, and we don't know the details. We don't know the nature of his original claims, nor his work status at that point, or what he was doing besides making a complaint, or what the retaliation was, if it was actually retaliation, and what it was related to.

 

[Duke]

Im not sure I understand what you mean, Im simply answering this question:

No, you didn't answer the question @JMartJr asked, you gave an uninformed/unsupported, biased opinion about a governmental agency you apparently have no experience in or knowledge of.

Grusch's complaint to the IGIC was filled in May 2022. A determination by the IGIC almost certainly has been rendered by June 2023. The results of IG investigations involving complaints filed by individuals are not releasable by the USG under public domain or FOIA, but can be made public by the individual who filed the complaint. (Personal experience, I can relate the story if anyone is interested.)

Grusch retired/resigned in April 2023, but neither he nor his counsel has released the IGIC findings on his complaint. That leads me to believe the IGIC did not find in his favor, and as a result he left government service. If he still believes he is right, he may have legal remedies through the federal court system.

 

[John J.]

It seems like somehow they created a system where they can give people "red flags" for asking questions... which is a pretty big "red flag" for abuse at the workplace if you ask me.

(1) The "need to know" philosophy- in a military setting, some questions that an individual might have could be irrelevant to their role. Answering those questions- that is, distributing information beyond those who have a need to know- can compromise security. An individual who repeatedly asks such questions, particularly about kit, operations or units that they are not involved in, might well raise a "red flag".

(2) It isn't abuse at the workplace, it's the normal way of operating, and a culture that most servicemen and women "buy into" (or at least rapidly adapt to).
If an infantryman is captured by the enemy, the fact that he doesn't know what that shiny new fairing on his country's latest jet fighter does (despite his curiosity) is probably best for him, his colleagues and his country's operations.

 

[tobigtofool]

(1) The "need to know" philosophy- in a military setting, some questions that an individual might have could be irrelevant to their role. Answering those questions- that is, distributing information beyond those who have a need to know- can compromise security. An individual who repeatedly asks such questions, particularly about kit, operations or units that they are not involved in, might well raise a "red flag".

(2) It isn't abuse at the workplace, it's the normal way of operating, and a culture that most servicemen and women "buy into" (or at least rapidly adapt to).
If an infantryman is captured by the enemy, the fact that he doesn't know what that shiny new fairing on his country's latest jet fighter does (despite his curiosity) is probably best for him, his colleagues and his country's operations.

Yeah, like I said, I dont know how this stuff works in the pentagon (Merit Systems Protection Board?). But under normal employment law this stuff wouldn't fly and I'm not entirely sure that it should in DG's particular station either.

I can see how you don't want every operator asking questions in intelligence though, so maybe it should never change there! I dont know!

Sure, but it's a complicated situation, and we don't know the details. We don't know the nature of his original claims, nor his work status at that point, or what he was doing besides making a complaint, or what the retaliation was, if it was actually retaliation, and what it was related to.

Absolutly, I am basing this on this statement:

DoD IG (then presumably Sean O'Donnell), with whom the original disclosure was filed. They did not seem to think it was credible, and possibly took action against Grusch because of this (or, if his allegations are true, as a cover-up)

Then he filed a complain about this with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Thomas A. Monheim

Since his protected disclosure(s) to the DoD IG, Mr. Grusch has been subjected to numerous
adverse security clearance actions. These actions have unfairly and unjustifiably impugned his integrity,
character, judgment, professionalism, and mental health.

THAT is what is known to be urgent and credible, not the content of the original claim.

Ross seems to say there's more to this aspect, which we will learn soon, where the DoD complaint was inspected.

If the first one wasn't considered credible (why?) and they possibly took action against DG (retaliation?) and the complaint he made about it was considered urgent and credible, that until we know more this could be a sign of wrong doing.

I'm not saying it is, but it looks odd until we know why the first disclosure wasn't considered credible (not what it was, but why it was determined not to be), and what exactly the claims of retaliation were, and why the following complaint was urgent and credible?

Excuse me if I am wrong here, but I am just trying to keep track of the lose ends.

 

[Duke]

Yeah, like I said, I dont know how this stuff works in the pentagon. But under normal employment law this stuff wouldn't fly.

Ever heard of corporate espionage?Employees in the corporate world sign non-disclosure arguments analogous to the secrecy oaths taken/NDAs signed by DoD/USG types. If an employee of XYZ Corporation started asking questions of coworkers about a sensitive project he wasn't read into or part of, that employee would face the same type consequences anyone in the DoD would face, up to and including dismissal. And it's much easier to fire someone in the corporate workplace than it is a federal employee.

It's worth considering these practices were developed in the past, and things have changed quite a bit and it wasn't even long ago that we said the same things about any high-stake work place riven with bad behavior, that it was something people "bought into". But that's changed quite a bit both legally and culturally!

Apples and kumquats. There is a difference between evolution of social norms and how they are applied in the work place, and how classified information is protected. Yes, wolf whistling at a female in the work place is now both culturally unacceptable and illegal. Regulations requiring protection of classified information have, if anything, become more pronounced with technology.

I can see how you don't want every operator asking questions in intelligence though, so maybe it should never change there! I dont know!

Agree

 

[Landru]

Yeah, like I said, I dont know how this stuff works in the pentagon (Merit Systems Protection Board?). But under normal employment law this stuff wouldn't fly and I'm not entirely sure that it should in DG's particular station either.

I can see how you don't want every operator asking questions in intelligence though, so maybe it should never change there! I dont know!



Absolutly, I am basing this on this statement:



If the first one wasn't considered credible (why?) and they possibly took action against DG (retaliation?) and the complaint he made about it was considered urgent and credible, that until we know more this could be a sign of wrong doing.

I'm not saying it is, but it looks odd until we know why the first disclosure wasn't considered credible (not what it was, but why it was determined not to be), and what exactly the claims of retaliation were, and why the following complaint was urgent and credible?

Excuse me if I am wrong here, but I am just trying to keep track of the lose ends.

Your incredulity has been addressed numerous times. DG made a complaint. Given the time that has passed a determination has probably been rendered (there are time limits within the government to investigate). The results of that determination will not be known to the public unless DG desires it.

Unless you have additional evidence this horse has been flogged enough.

 

[Mendel]

If the first one wasn't considered credible (why?) and they possibly took action against DG (retaliation?) and the complaint he made about it was considered urgent and credible, that until we know more this could be a sign of wrong doing.

I'm not saying it is, but it looks odd until we know why the first disclosure wasn't considered credible (not what it was, but why it was determined not to be), and what exactly the claims of retaliation were, and why the following complaint was urgent and credible?

I'm going to be very hypothetical in this post, but since we've seen all of the "concerned citizen" hypotheticals, let me give you the "unconcerned noncitizen" hypothetical.

Hypothetically, David Grusch complained to the DoD IG that the DoD is retrieving and analysing UFOs, and not telling Congress or UAPTF about it. Hypothetically, the DoD IG knows that these claims are batshit insane false, but also notices that Grusch used his access to snoop through files that were not related to his assigned tasks, but rather in pursuit of his UFO theories. Hypothetically, the DoD IG deems this a security risk, and suggests to the elements concerned to review whether Grusch still needs that access. Grusch then thinks this is retaliation, and contacts a good lawyer. The lawyer recognizes that retaliation via clearances is an interesting legal issue, takes Grusch's case, and files the complaint. Avril Haines concurs and immediately puts safeguards in place that protect intelligence workers against losing their clearances undeservedly. Hypothetically, the IG IC / the independent panel has words with Grusch, and they tell him that if he doesn't quit the service on his own, they're going to charge him with security violations and fire him, because he's been abusing his clearances to pursue his batshit insane outlandish theories.

And hypothetically, the people who are cleared to know the details of this story, including Congress's intelligence committee members, are just as unconcerned as I am. (Well, that's not wholly hypothetical. I've quoted their statements above, they're unconcerned.)

 

[AliceTheMalice]

Don't know if this is the right thread, but I have recently finished listening to the Leslie Keane interview with Ezra Klein from the NYT, and he grills her a bit about the vetting she did and about Grusch's sources and documentation. This is a quote from the interview:

EZRA KLEIN: So has he named any of these people to you?

LESLIE KEAN: Not to me. The specific individuals, the locations of the programs, the names of the programs, all of those things are classified, so he's not in a position to present any of that information to me. But he has presented that information to Congress, and he presented about 11 hours of oral testimony to congressional staffers, which was then transcribed into hundreds of pages. So all that information has been provided, but not to me.

To me this reads like Kean and Blumenthal never actually talked to any of the people Grusch used for his sourcing. IF we assume the Congressional testimony is classified then how can they independently verify that what he told them is what he told congress? It makes me wonder why the journalists have not released the full DOPSR document since that is one of the few official documents they actually can release.

 

[tobigtofool]

You didn't address my statement. No such determination of retaliation has been made.

I actually never said there were.

There are two IGs (Inspectors General) here.

DoD IG (then presumably Sean O'Donnell), with whom the original disclosure was filed. They did not seem to think it was credible, and possibly took action against Grusch because of this (or, if his allegations are true, as a cover-up)

It was Mick, according to him the 2nd complaint to the IG seems to determine they were:

Then he filed a complain about this with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Thomas A. Monheim

Since his protected disclosure(s) to the DoD IG, Mr. Grusch has been subjected to numerous
adverse security clearance actions. These actions have unfairly and unjustifiably impugned his integrity,
character, judgment, professionalism, and mental health.

THAT is what is known to be urgent and credible, not the content of the original claim.

Ross seems to say there's more to this aspect, which we will learn soon, where the DoD complaint was inspected.

Landru, where did you get the information that no determination of retaliation has been made?

 

[Landru]

I actually never said there were.



It was Mick, according to him the 2nd complaint to the IG seems to determine they were:



Landru, where did you get the information that no determination of retaliation has been made?

Because if it had been DG would have told us.

 

[tobigtofool]

Because if it had been DG would have told us.

Told us what exactly?

Are you saying for a fact the urgent and credible complaint he made was not about retaliation, and about something else the IG decided was urgent and credible?

 

[Landru]

Told us what exactly?

Are you saying for a fact the urgent and credible complaint he made was not about retaliation, and they thought something else was urgent and credible about them?

I feel I (and others) have been very clear. Any complaint that DG made has been investigated and determined to be without merit. Otherwise DG would have made it public.

 

[tobigtofool]

I feel I (and others) have been very clear. Any complaint that DG made has been investigated and determined to be without merit. Otherwise DG would have made it public.

What is this:

Then he filed a complain about this with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Thomas A. Monheim

Since his protected disclosure(s) to the DoD IG, Mr. Grusch has been subjected to numerous
adverse security clearance actions. These actions have unfairly and unjustifiably impugned his integrity,
character, judgment, professionalism, and mental health.

THAT is what is known to be urgent and credible, not the content of the original claim.

Ross seems to say there's more to this aspect, which we will learn soon, where the DoD complaint was inspected.

 

[Landru]

What is this:

An excerpt from DG's complaint.