5 ms·

>putting their reputation and career (and maybe safety) on the line They aren't because there is literally no new data, none. This isn't like Manning etc... wh

>putting their reputation and career (and maybe safety) on the line They aren't because there is literally no new data, none. This isn't like Manning etc... where there was a materiel leak of classified data. So what would they be charged/fired for? Nothing. It's so much lazier, the claim is that being prevented access is somehow a proof of a coverup. All of the claims of harm were long before any of the publicity here. All of the "whistleblowers" in these cases were not on any kind of career trajectory that this would have put in danger or even still serving in those roles. They were all regular joes with uneventful military careers. They didn't bring new data to light like other whistleblowers - it's all rumors and speculation in this case, and literally a handful of shitty FLIR videos in others. I'm baffled at the lack of epistemic consistency across truth claims. Nobody would accept this level of speculation for anything actually related to reality yet here we are wasting time on this. I've hurt myself today by being involved here at all. Totally irrational.

shepardrtc 3y ago
> > putting their reputation and career (and maybe safety) on the line > They aren't... > Totally irrational. Ok you just proved why they're putting their reputation and career on the line... people calling it irrational.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Sorry, to be clear my point is that 1. They have no reputations to put on the line 2. They didn't do anything risky This isn't like we're talking about the AF Chief of Staff or some major leader in a field. So there's nothing to put on the line, they were nobodies before this and once it dies off they will be nobodies again. Said differently, this whole debacle will make them MORE famous and employable than they were previously. So the overall impact on their life is that they get more fame and attention for effectively no risk. People seeking fame and attention don't generally care what kind.
  - likeabbas 3y ago
    1. Grusch gave up his career in the intelligence community to whistleblow on this. He had everything to lose. 2. Grusch has testified under oath to the ICIG, both intelligence committees, and now to the house oversight committee. If he’s locking, they could lock him away indefinitely. Your entire argument is moot and you are looking for any excuse to discredit what’s being said. If you think he’s lying, ask your congressmen to investigate his claims and jail him if he’s lying.
    - thewildginger 3y ago
      Thank you. Grusch was 4 years away from a full retirement and like 2 from early retirement when he resigned and became a whistleblower.
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      Does anybody ever go to jail for lying to Congress?
      - likeabbas 3y ago
        He’s made accusations against specific people and corporations saying they’ve been involved in illegal activities and withholding information from congress. People do go to jail for false accusations of this order
likeabbas 3y ago
> They were all regular joes with uneventful military careers Grusch was a GS15 NGA officer that was read into over 2000 special access programs and prepared/delivered the presidential daily briefing in 2021. He’s quite literally one of the most credentialed intelligence officers in the US. Dave Fravor was second in command of the USS Nimitz and is recognized as one of the top fighter pilots to come out of Top Gun.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  >Grusch was a GS15 NGA officer that was read into over 2000 special access programs and prepared/delivered the presidential daily briefing in 2021. He’s quite literally one of the most credentialed intelligence officers in the US. This is way more common than you think it is and again, not special. I prepped multiple PDBs from 2012-2015 while at DIA and then again while on the JS/J2 staff. Delivering a segment of the PDB is indeed noteworthy, but again, not particularly rare or an indication that you're somehow especially great or special. This is the reality of the IC ... things that SEEM special to you are boring regular everyday events for us. Few people in the DoD/IC are exceptional and I can promise you that this guy wasn't one of them
  - likeabbas 3y ago
    What was your rank? How many SAPs were you read into? Having Top Secret SCI clearance does not give you immediate access to every SAP you request to be read into. Most people are not read into more that a dozen SAPs. I’ll also point out that if Grusch was an unexceptional IC officer, the pentagon would easily be able to discredit him as such. To date, the pentagon has not attempted to say anything about Grusch’s credibility. Many reporters have stated on the record that Grusch is very well regarded as a high level intelligence official. What evidence do you have that this guy was not an exceptional officer, other than maybe you yourself were not exceptional?
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      I answered all this elsewhere My record is public so you can verify by yourself
JohnBooty 3y ago
They aren't because there is literally no new data, none Grusch cannot legally divulge classified information publicly. Nobody can. Instant jail time- see Manning, etc. So no, obviously, we couldn't possibly have seen data or proof today. He can, however, discuss it with Congress and the whistleblower program in a secure setting and has done so (as he mentioned many dozens of times under oath today) and is willing to do so further. truth claims I think I see the disconnect here. I don't see (credible) people claiming that anything was proven to be the "truth" today. Yet that seems to be what you're railing about. Well, hey, I agree with you a hundred percent about that. Nothing proved. However, for reasons reiterated dozens of times here, his claims are very significant. If they are not true then he has duped a lot of members of Congress. Considering some of the congresspeople I saw up there today, it's not exactly the intellectual A-Team. But still.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  > Grusch cannot legally divulge classified information publicly. Nobody can. Congresspeople can. They can stand up and read classified information into the record. They can’t be prosecuted for it, because of the Speech and Debate Clause.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    How often is that done? I'm overwhelmingly in favor of transparency and disclosure, but there are pretty big national current security concerns here.
    - dlgeek 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel#Vietnam_War,_the_draft,_and_the_Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel#Vietnam_War,_the_d...
    - dmvdoug 3y ago
      It's vanishingly rare, of course. Part of the problem is how does Congress get classified information from the Executive Branch? The latter has to turn it over. Cooperation between the two is necessary. If Congressfolk routinely read classified information into the record, cooperation would vanish. If Congressperson Blip made it a habit to run to the floor everytime s/he received anything with classification markings, Congressperson Blip would find that supply drying up faster than rain in a desert. But it is an ultimate recourse Congresspeople have, should they come into possession of classified information they are afraid will be deposited into the memory hole, like Senator Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers.

shepardrtc 3y ago

> > putting their reputation and career (and maybe safety) on the line > They aren't... > Totally irrational. Ok you just proved why they're putting their reputation and career on the line... people calling it irrational.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Sorry, to be clear my point is that 1. They have no reputations to put on the line 2. They didn't do anything risky This isn't like we're talking about the AF Chief of Staff or some major leader in a field. So there's nothing to put on the line, they were nobodies before this and once it dies off they will be nobodies again. Said differently, this whole debacle will make them MORE famous and employable than they were previously. So the overall impact on their life is that they get more fame and attention for effectively no risk. People seeking fame and attention don't generally care what kind.
- likeabbas 3y ago
  1. Grusch gave up his career in the intelligence community to whistleblow on this. He had everything to lose. 2. Grusch has testified under oath to the ICIG, both intelligence committees, and now to the house oversight committee. If he’s locking, they could lock him away indefinitely. Your entire argument is moot and you are looking for any excuse to discredit what’s being said. If you think he’s lying, ask your congressmen to investigate his claims and jail him if he’s lying.
  - thewildginger 3y ago
    Thank you. Grusch was 4 years away from a full retirement and like 2 from early retirement when he resigned and became a whistleblower.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    Does anybody ever go to jail for lying to Congress?
    - likeabbas 3y ago
      He’s made accusations against specific people and corporations saying they’ve been involved in illegal activities and withholding information from congress. People do go to jail for false accusations of this order

likeabbas 3y ago

> They were all regular joes with uneventful military careers Grusch was a GS15 NGA officer that was read into over 2000 special access programs and prepared/delivered the presidential daily briefing in 2021. He’s quite literally one of the most credentialed intelligence officers in the US. Dave Fravor was second in command of the USS Nimitz and is recognized as one of the top fighter pilots to come out of Top Gun.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
>Grusch was a GS15 NGA officer that was read into over 2000 special access programs and prepared/delivered the presidential daily briefing in 2021. He’s quite literally one of the most credentialed intelligence officers in the US. This is way more common than you think it is and again, not special. I prepped multiple PDBs from 2012-2015 while at DIA and then again while on the JS/J2 staff. Delivering a segment of the PDB is indeed noteworthy, but again, not particularly rare or an indication that you're somehow especially great or special. This is the reality of the IC ... things that SEEM special to you are boring regular everyday events for us. Few people in the DoD/IC are exceptional and I can promise you that this guy wasn't one of them
- likeabbas 3y ago
  What was your rank? How many SAPs were you read into? Having Top Secret SCI clearance does not give you immediate access to every SAP you request to be read into. Most people are not read into more that a dozen SAPs. I’ll also point out that if Grusch was an unexceptional IC officer, the pentagon would easily be able to discredit him as such. To date, the pentagon has not attempted to say anything about Grusch’s credibility. Many reporters have stated on the record that Grusch is very well regarded as a high level intelligence official. What evidence do you have that this guy was not an exceptional officer, other than maybe you yourself were not exceptional?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I answered all this elsewhere My record is public so you can verify by yourself

JohnBooty 3y ago

They aren't because there is literally no new data, none Grusch cannot legally divulge classified information publicly. Nobody can. Instant jail time- see Manning, etc. So no, obviously, we couldn't possibly have seen data or proof today. He can, however, discuss it with Congress and the whistleblower program in a secure setting and has done so (as he mentioned many dozens of times under oath today) and is willing to do so further. truth claims I think I see the disconnect here. I don't see (credible) people claiming that anything was proven to be the "truth" today. Yet that seems to be what you're railing about. Well, hey, I agree with you a hundred percent about that. Nothing proved. However, for reasons reiterated dozens of times here, his claims are very significant. If they are not true then he has duped a lot of members of Congress. Considering some of the congresspeople I saw up there today, it's not exactly the intellectual A-Team. But still.

dmvdoug 3y ago
> Grusch cannot legally divulge classified information publicly. Nobody can. Congresspeople can. They can stand up and read classified information into the record. They can’t be prosecuted for it, because of the Speech and Debate Clause.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  How often is that done? I'm overwhelmingly in favor of transparency and disclosure, but there are pretty big national current security concerns here.
  - dlgeek 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel#Vietnam_War,_the_draft,_and_the_Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel#Vietnam_War,_the_d...
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    It's vanishingly rare, of course. Part of the problem is how does Congress get classified information from the Executive Branch? The latter has to turn it over. Cooperation between the two is necessary. If Congressfolk routinely read classified information into the record, cooperation would vanish. If Congressperson Blip made it a habit to run to the floor everytime s/he received anything with classification markings, Congressperson Blip would find that supply drying up faster than rain in a desert. But it is an ultimate recourse Congresspeople have, should they come into possession of classified information they are afraid will be deposited into the memory hole, like Senator Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers.