2 ms·
People are not asking to "believe" his testimony. We are asking to investigate the very specific classified information he shared with the ICIG, such as locatio
by david-gpu 3y ago
People are not asking to "believe" his testimony. We are asking to investigate the very specific classified information he shared with the ICIG, such as locations, directors, first-hand witnesses and project names.
- tsimionescu 3y agoThe poster above was claiming that "no one is claiming Grusch is untrustworthy". As an intelligence official, he is the epitome of untrustworthy-ness. To start detailed public investigations, you'd first have to believe that his words mean something. Of course, I would expect some internal investigation into if and why he is claiming these things, if it's not already known. But I don't see why anyone should spend any significant resources (let alone the public at large) going by the words of someone who is payed to hide things from the public.
- david-gpu 3y ago> But I don't see why anyone should spend any significant resources (let alone the public at large) going by the words of someone who is payed to hide things from the public. If there is a conspiracy inside the DoD to hide reverse-engineering projects from congressional oversight, as Grusch claims, then there is a good chance that no investigations will actually be performed without significant pressure from the public. That is why public engagement is important. Public apathy enables corruption.
- tsimionescu 3y agoAnd if there isn't, the investigation will be a massive waste of money and time, and it's only result would be to maybe send Grusch to jail. And given how vague and fact-free his public testimony was, even that is not guaranteed.