7 ms·

> 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/d

> 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
    - likeabbas 3y ago
      I’m not looking up some random online comment’s credentials to try to prove their own point. Your comment doesn’t stand on its own and if you’re not willing to clarify your credentials further then your argument is moot.
      - sixstringtheory 3y ago
        Why wouldn’t you just go on to apply all the same criteria to whatever response they would provide to you? Looks like they made the right decision not to engage with your demands.
        likeabbas 3y ago
        I haven’t asked anyone to look up anything. I’m just discussing what’s in the article and the sources the article is referencing. I’m happy to give people plenty of things to read or watch to catch up if you’d like - I won’t make you sleuth for it in my comment history.
    - LargeTomato 3y ago
      I don't know you. I don't know how to look up your "record". Why obfuscate? If you came onto HN to spread awareness then help us understand. Otherwise you've come here to brag and you are not helpful.
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    > Most people are not read into more that a dozen SAPs. What’s your rank? How many did you have access to? Citations please. > Many reporters Given the fundamental disregard HN has towards the MSM, this would be an appeal to authority. When I was a sophmore the CIA recruiter said he knew coops who had done pdbs. I guess he was disreputable.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    What was your rank? How many SAPs were you read into?
  - DropInIn 3y ago
    So.... argument from authority? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- jschveibinz 3y ago
  I knew a guy who made “flag badge” that sat at his desk, smoked cigarettes, read the newspaper and drank tea for at least half of his workday. So I agree with your assessment.
mmcwilliams 3y ago
Does someone being a credentialed US intelligence official make their public statements more or less trustworthy than the average person?
- likeabbas 3y ago
  Certainly to me, especially given he’s testified under oath to multiple congressional committees and the ICIG. He’s made some outrageous accusations that absolutely need to be investigated. Either he’s lying and we have crazy people in very high levels of government, or he’s not and we need to get this information into the public domain.
  - mmcwilliams 3y ago
    I understand the context, but what I'm asking is; do US intelligence officers make completely truthful statements as a public as a practice? Or is their expertise rather in acquiring, analyzing and compartmentalizing information.
    - likeabbas 3y ago
      > do US intelligence officers make completely truthful statements as a public as a practice? No. Intel (especially counter intel) officers are, trained to give information to convince someone of a certain context. Whether that information is true depends on the situation. But it’s certainly not common for anyone to lie under oath, especially when they are testifying that specific people and corporations are involved in illegal operations. He’s opened himself up to not only perjury, but also lawsuits of false accusations. I don’t think the billion dollar defense contractors would have any trouble suing David Grusch if he’s lying.
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        I think there is a pretty good record of high-level intelligence officials lying to Congress under oath, and a similar history of no consequences whatsoever when the lie was later revealed. WMDs in Irak and the inexistence of the PRISM program were both testified about in Congress, and later turned out to be lies. Which high-level intelligence officials were ever even investigated for perjury?
alephnerd 3y ago
GS15 is not that impressive. Don't get me wrong - it's a good rank and the pay is decent by DMV standards, but like there are thousands of people with GS15 ranks. Now if he was an SES level that might be more intriguing...

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
  - likeabbas 3y ago
    I’m not looking up some random online comment’s credentials to try to prove their own point. Your comment doesn’t stand on its own and if you’re not willing to clarify your credentials further then your argument is moot.
    - sixstringtheory 3y ago
      Why wouldn’t you just go on to apply all the same criteria to whatever response they would provide to you? Looks like they made the right decision not to engage with your demands.
      - likeabbas 3y ago
        I haven’t asked anyone to look up anything. I’m just discussing what’s in the article and the sources the article is referencing. I’m happy to give people plenty of things to read or watch to catch up if you’d like - I won’t make you sleuth for it in my comment history.
  - LargeTomato 3y ago
    I don't know you. I don't know how to look up your "record". Why obfuscate? If you came onto HN to spread awareness then help us understand. Otherwise you've come here to brag and you are not helpful.
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  > Most people are not read into more that a dozen SAPs. What’s your rank? How many did you have access to? Citations please. > Many reporters Given the fundamental disregard HN has towards the MSM, this would be an appeal to authority. When I was a sophmore the CIA recruiter said he knew coops who had done pdbs. I guess he was disreputable.
- voxic11 3y ago
  What was your rank? How many SAPs were you read into?
- DropInIn 3y ago
  So.... argument from authority? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
jschveibinz 3y ago
I knew a guy who made “flag badge” that sat at his desk, smoked cigarettes, read the newspaper and drank tea for at least half of his workday. So I agree with your assessment.

mmcwilliams 3y ago

Does someone being a credentialed US intelligence official make their public statements more or less trustworthy than the average person?

likeabbas 3y ago
Certainly to me, especially given he’s testified under oath to multiple congressional committees and the ICIG. He’s made some outrageous accusations that absolutely need to be investigated. Either he’s lying and we have crazy people in very high levels of government, or he’s not and we need to get this information into the public domain.
- mmcwilliams 3y ago
  I understand the context, but what I'm asking is; do US intelligence officers make completely truthful statements as a public as a practice? Or is their expertise rather in acquiring, analyzing and compartmentalizing information.
  - likeabbas 3y ago
    > do US intelligence officers make completely truthful statements as a public as a practice? No. Intel (especially counter intel) officers are, trained to give information to convince someone of a certain context. Whether that information is true depends on the situation. But it’s certainly not common for anyone to lie under oath, especially when they are testifying that specific people and corporations are involved in illegal operations. He’s opened himself up to not only perjury, but also lawsuits of false accusations. I don’t think the billion dollar defense contractors would have any trouble suing David Grusch if he’s lying.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      I think there is a pretty good record of high-level intelligence officials lying to Congress under oath, and a similar history of no consequences whatsoever when the lie was later revealed. WMDs in Irak and the inexistence of the PRISM program were both testified about in Congress, and later turned out to be lies. Which high-level intelligence officials were ever even investigated for perjury?

alephnerd 3y ago

GS15 is not that impressive. Don't get me wrong - it's a good rank and the pay is decent by DMV standards, but like there are thousands of people with GS15 ranks. Now if he was an SES level that might be more intriguing...