I find it shocking that she had no idea that the UAPDA was gutted. She’s one of the few politicians that has spearheaded this topic, not to mention that UFO twitter inundated SSCI and HPSCI members when emails and calls. Either her staff (and perhaps Gillibrand herself) are complicit with DoD/IC/defense aerospace efforts, or the incompetence of politicians and their staffers in DC has reached amazing heights.
I believe that Sen. Gillibrand initially thought that you were asking her about her own UAP-related amendments to the 2024 NDAA-IAA, which dealt with de-funding any UAP-related special access projects that had not been controlled by Congress. Those provisions were diluted but the core language was enacted. So her initial answer made sense in that context. But you were actually not asking about the UAP provisions she authored, but about the Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act, of which she was merely a cosponsor. Of the UAPDA cosponsors, I think only Senator Rounds was actively engaged in the conference committee fight.
I am not aware of any evidence that either Secretary Austin or National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan were involved in gutting the UAPDA. Most likely the matter was handled at a lower level of the Pentagon. As to Sullivan, while there were reports of Schumer giving the White House some kind of heads-up consultation before the UAPDA was introduced, I am aware of no evidence that the White House (which includes Sullivan) ever did anything either way about the UAPDA after it was introduced in the Senate. All those "insider" reports from Danny Sheehan about how the UAPDA was part of a White House master plan for disclosure were fiction.
If whistleblowers are uncomfortable with going to AARO then some other organization or entity should run the hearing and be given the power to hear and investigate their claims, I think Lazlo should inform the Oversight Committee about this, hopefully this will put their hearing at the top of their lists and get them to come together to get it to happen soon.
I’m curious about her comment regarding not being able to assess whistleblower testimony unless they go to AARO. Why? Is she truly of the belief that if AARO “can’t find” a named program, then it doesn’t exist? Can she not see the glaring conflict of interest when it comes to the DoD investigating itself? Has she ever asked herself why these whistleblowers are willing to go to Congress and the Inspectors General (whose investigations are supposed to be black boxes to the brass and senior spooks), but refuse to go to AARO?
matt PLEASE let them know most of the UAPDA provisions did not pass. independent review board is out. how are they going to let the people supposedly doing a coverup in charge of investigating said coverup. what's the justification for the removal of the board?
Good scoop, sir. My read of this interview is that Gillibrand is in cahoots with the MIC to promote a staged event to further the narrative there is nothing here. She gives no indication that any whistleblower will be testifying.
Also, if they knowingly are lacking information, why publish incomplete reports without a qualified statement they were denied access to certain items. They pretend like their work assessed all the evidence which is now provably false. And that was prepared by the current interim director.
She loses me in the fact that she keeps basically insisting if these whistleblowers do not trust AARO then its a dead end because they need to assess the claims. We’ve heard from numerous people that testified to AARO that they did not seem to take their mandate seriously, took poor notes and were trying to brush this under the rug by all accounts.
I understand Rep Garcia and others seem more optimistic about Phillips, but as Tim Gaudette said, the Executive Branch (which AARO serves) does not want to be forthcoming on this subject. He said by default that means AARO will not be forthcoming on this subject.
If Gillibrand amends her stance and quits only considering testimony which is vetted only by an adverse governmental agency then I will be more impressed. There needs to be an independent body not beholden to the Executive Branch IMO.
Seems like more confirmation that Grusch was invited by AARO for an interview but refused, this was also reported recently by The Black Vault. Grusch’s opportunities to provide further evidence and disclosure seem to be fading in the rearview. I feel if he doesn’t act soon his credibility won’t recover.
Curious that at least 2 other whistleblowers don't trust AARO but trusted Gillibrand. Seems lawmakers recognize AARO's failing whistleblowers, at a minimum...
At least 30 individuals were interviewed for the AARO Historical Report, Vol 1. The fact that some whistleblowers don’t trust AARO is not necessarily a reflection of a failure by AARO. It is a bit of a catch-22 though. There aren’t any other (official) outlets to take whistleblower claims to for investigation that would/could confirm or deny those claims. Right now AARO is the only office claiming responsibility for doing so. So if a whistleblower doesn’t trust AARO (or the USG/MIC) their claims will go unverified, for now.
The recent AARO UAP report makes it glaringly obvious that AARO is a honeypot created by the MIC to catch, smother and otherwise impugn the integrity of any UAP whistleblower. Grusch (and others) were wise to stay the hell away.
Disagree. Having read the report there’s nothing that would indicate so. If Grusch wanted to provide evidence to the contrary he’s had ample opportunity to do so.
Grusch publicly stated, prior to the FOIA release you're referring to, that AARO wouldn't address his concerns about their ability to receive the information.
From Liberation Times on the 22nd of January:
“On request of a Senator in late October 2023, I have been in communication via email with AARO staff and have been willing to work on an interview arrangement.
“AARO staff have been unwilling to address in writing the specific handling of classified compartmented information, such as the CIA Directorate of Operations’ compartmented data on human sources and non-UAP related but adjacent compartmented programs."
The FOIA substantiates that. Here's the email from Grusch noting all the concerns that he and his attorney have with testifying and seeking that they be addressed.
"The key issue here is that many of these activities have conventional classified and compartmented Security Classification Guides that also cover non-UAP activities as well. To discuss the UAP-related activities would also expose these conventional SAP mission areas. An oral history interview subject must also be absolved of this obligation to protect this information as well, some of it may be bigoted or WAIVED (lAW DODI 5205.11 and 10 USC Sec 119).
...
"Additionally, in my particular case, in order to horizontally protect a portion of my oral history testimony previously provided to ICIG and the intelligence committees, we would need to conduct the interview at the HCS-Operations (0) Restricted Handling (RH) level (lAW DNI CAPCO manual Sec. 4). Has the CIA Office of Security (OS) or Directorate of Operations (DO) provided a memo in this regard for oral history interview subjects? Has the OS provided a memo to also cover managed-need-to-know (MNTK) projects not directly reported to ODNI CAPCO?
Lastly, what signed policy does AARO have to receive non-title-10 SAPs (ie, DOE and NSC)? Has the EOP NSC Security Director, Director National Program Management Staff OUSD(I&S), or DOE SAPCO/SAPOC provided a memo similar to the DoD SAPCO memo you provided?"
Instead of addressing Grusch's specific concerns, AARO simply told him that "the law is clear". Grusch pushed back asking for specific answers in writing, noting, "I did not ask these questions for mere curiosity", on November 14th and November 19th. AARO never addressed his specific concerns.
So, there's a risk that some may shape the narrative about his credibility because of his refusal to speak to AARO, but to me it's clear that his refusal to speak with AARO is based on the advice of his highly-qualified attorney.
Grusch's concerns regarding the sharing of sensitive information with AARO may be valid. I'm won't argue against that.
However, I feel that based on his statements to the press and to Congress he's misrepresented his interactions with AARO, or at best, he has not been totally transparent. That is where I feel he's damaged his credibility.
----------
Nov 1, 2023 - Statement made by David Grusch to NewsNation's Brian Entin regarding Kirkpatrick's claim that AARO had reached out to Grusch several times but Grusch declined to be interviewed:
"I have zero emails or calls from them. That is a lie." — David Grusch
The first sentence in this statement by Grusch is technically true, but only because AARO did not have his email address or phone number at the time. AARO had made at least 7 invitations over the previous 5 months to Grusch prior to his above statement. Those invitations were extended to Grusch via other AARO interviewees, Congressional staff members and Grusch's associates.
----------
July 26, 2023 - Transcript of House Committee on Government Oversight's hearing on UAPs.
Mr. GRUSCH: Yes. Him (Kirkpatrick) and I had a classified conversation in April 2022 before he took over AARO in July 2022 and I provided him some concerns I had.
Ms. LUNA: Do you know why he might not have followed up with you?
Mr. GRUSCH: Unfortunately, I cannot read his mind. I wish he did. I was happy to give sage counsel to him on where to look when he took the helm of AARO.
Here Grusch supports Luna's characterization of Kirkpatrick "not following up", even though by this date AARO had extended four invitations for an interview via Grusch's associates and Congressional staffers.
Has any read Kirkpatrick's article in Scientific American (April 2024, pp. 67-68)? He is obviously very biased against any UAP activity being alien. In fact, he thinks talk of aliens is nonsense, and anyone, including US Congress Members, are being foolish to consider this possibility. If Gillibrand has not read this article, she needs to.
I find it shocking that she had no idea that the UAPDA was gutted. She’s one of the few politicians that has spearheaded this topic, not to mention that UFO twitter inundated SSCI and HPSCI members when emails and calls. Either her staff (and perhaps Gillibrand herself) are complicit with DoD/IC/defense aerospace efforts, or the incompetence of politicians and their staffers in DC has reached amazing heights.
Hear ya. Also, remember Sen. Rounds - the lead GOP co-author, Rubio, Young, Chair Reed, Jim Himes, etc. all still have no idea who gutted it.
So curious, but they were all cut out and we're still set on getting to bottom - or to find out who was making the calls from up top - of it
I believe that Sen. Gillibrand initially thought that you were asking her about her own UAP-related amendments to the 2024 NDAA-IAA, which dealt with de-funding any UAP-related special access projects that had not been controlled by Congress. Those provisions were diluted but the core language was enacted. So her initial answer made sense in that context. But you were actually not asking about the UAP provisions she authored, but about the Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act, of which she was merely a cosponsor. Of the UAPDA cosponsors, I think only Senator Rounds was actively engaged in the conference committee fight.
I am not aware of any evidence that either Secretary Austin or National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan were involved in gutting the UAPDA. Most likely the matter was handled at a lower level of the Pentagon. As to Sullivan, while there were reports of Schumer giving the White House some kind of heads-up consultation before the UAPDA was introduced, I am aware of no evidence that the White House (which includes Sullivan) ever did anything either way about the UAPDA after it was introduced in the Senate. All those "insider" reports from Danny Sheehan about how the UAPDA was part of a White House master plan for disclosure were fiction.
I think that Chairman Rogers and Senator Rounds know very well how it went down.
If whistleblowers are uncomfortable with going to AARO then some other organization or entity should run the hearing and be given the power to hear and investigate their claims, I think Lazlo should inform the Oversight Committee about this, hopefully this will put their hearing at the top of their lists and get them to come together to get it to happen soon.
Texted a link to House Oversight members...
Thank you!
It’s interesting that Grusch did not meet with Gillibrand….
It's been weird, from Gillibrand's telling anyways...
A trip down Gillibrand memory lane (guess I've interviewed her some 15 times on UAPs since last spring): https://twitter.com/AskaPol_UAPs/status/1786248671484404049
I’m curious about her comment regarding not being able to assess whistleblower testimony unless they go to AARO. Why? Is she truly of the belief that if AARO “can’t find” a named program, then it doesn’t exist? Can she not see the glaring conflict of interest when it comes to the DoD investigating itself? Has she ever asked herself why these whistleblowers are willing to go to Congress and the Inspectors General (whose investigations are supposed to be black boxes to the brass and senior spooks), but refuse to go to AARO?
Let’s make it spicy. Invite Grusch and Tim Phillips to the same public hearing
Can I moderate!?!?!
matt PLEASE let them know most of the UAPDA provisions did not pass. independent review board is out. how are they going to let the people supposedly doing a coverup in charge of investigating said coverup. what's the justification for the removal of the board?
CRAZY that they don't even know what happened to THEIR own damn bill!!!
Good scoop, sir. My read of this interview is that Gillibrand is in cahoots with the MIC to promote a staged event to further the narrative there is nothing here. She gives no indication that any whistleblower will be testifying.
Yeah she plays coy on everything and is Himes 2.0. AARO report was received poorly so they’re trying another strategy to tamp this down IMO.
But what about her being adamant the AARO report is not case closed and her pressing AARO on the items and space that isn't being monitored?
- local devil's advocate
Also, if they knowingly are lacking information, why publish incomplete reports without a qualified statement they were denied access to certain items. They pretend like their work assessed all the evidence which is now provably false. And that was prepared by the current interim director.
She loses me in the fact that she keeps basically insisting if these whistleblowers do not trust AARO then its a dead end because they need to assess the claims. We’ve heard from numerous people that testified to AARO that they did not seem to take their mandate seriously, took poor notes and were trying to brush this under the rug by all accounts.
I understand Rep Garcia and others seem more optimistic about Phillips, but as Tim Gaudette said, the Executive Branch (which AARO serves) does not want to be forthcoming on this subject. He said by default that means AARO will not be forthcoming on this subject.
If Gillibrand amends her stance and quits only considering testimony which is vetted only by an adverse governmental agency then I will be more impressed. There needs to be an independent body not beholden to the Executive Branch IMO.
Seems like more confirmation that Grusch was invited by AARO for an interview but refused, this was also reported recently by The Black Vault. Grusch’s opportunities to provide further evidence and disclosure seem to be fading in the rearview. I feel if he doesn’t act soon his credibility won’t recover.
Curious that at least 2 other whistleblowers don't trust AARO but trusted Gillibrand. Seems lawmakers recognize AARO's failing whistleblowers, at a minimum...
At least 30 individuals were interviewed for the AARO Historical Report, Vol 1. The fact that some whistleblowers don’t trust AARO is not necessarily a reflection of a failure by AARO. It is a bit of a catch-22 though. There aren’t any other (official) outlets to take whistleblower claims to for investigation that would/could confirm or deny those claims. Right now AARO is the only office claiming responsibility for doing so. So if a whistleblower doesn’t trust AARO (or the USG/MIC) their claims will go unverified, for now.
The recent AARO UAP report makes it glaringly obvious that AARO is a honeypot created by the MIC to catch, smother and otherwise impugn the integrity of any UAP whistleblower. Grusch (and others) were wise to stay the hell away.
Disagree. Having read the report there’s nothing that would indicate so. If Grusch wanted to provide evidence to the contrary he’s had ample opportunity to do so.
https://thedebrief.org/the-pentagons-new-uap-report-is-seriously-flawed/
Grusch publicly stated, prior to the FOIA release you're referring to, that AARO wouldn't address his concerns about their ability to receive the information.
From Liberation Times on the 22nd of January:
“On request of a Senator in late October 2023, I have been in communication via email with AARO staff and have been willing to work on an interview arrangement.
“AARO staff have been unwilling to address in writing the specific handling of classified compartmented information, such as the CIA Directorate of Operations’ compartmented data on human sources and non-UAP related but adjacent compartmented programs."
The FOIA substantiates that. Here's the email from Grusch noting all the concerns that he and his attorney have with testifying and seeking that they be addressed.
"The key issue here is that many of these activities have conventional classified and compartmented Security Classification Guides that also cover non-UAP activities as well. To discuss the UAP-related activities would also expose these conventional SAP mission areas. An oral history interview subject must also be absolved of this obligation to protect this information as well, some of it may be bigoted or WAIVED (lAW DODI 5205.11 and 10 USC Sec 119).
...
"Additionally, in my particular case, in order to horizontally protect a portion of my oral history testimony previously provided to ICIG and the intelligence committees, we would need to conduct the interview at the HCS-Operations (0) Restricted Handling (RH) level (lAW DNI CAPCO manual Sec. 4). Has the CIA Office of Security (OS) or Directorate of Operations (DO) provided a memo in this regard for oral history interview subjects? Has the OS provided a memo to also cover managed-need-to-know (MNTK) projects not directly reported to ODNI CAPCO?
Lastly, what signed policy does AARO have to receive non-title-10 SAPs (ie, DOE and NSC)? Has the EOP NSC Security Director, Director National Program Management Staff OUSD(I&S), or DOE SAPCO/SAPOC provided a memo similar to the DoD SAPCO memo you provided?"
Instead of addressing Grusch's specific concerns, AARO simply told him that "the law is clear". Grusch pushed back asking for specific answers in writing, noting, "I did not ask these questions for mere curiosity", on November 14th and November 19th. AARO never addressed his specific concerns.
So, there's a risk that some may shape the narrative about his credibility because of his refusal to speak to AARO, but to me it's clear that his refusal to speak with AARO is based on the advice of his highly-qualified attorney.
Grusch's concerns regarding the sharing of sensitive information with AARO may be valid. I'm won't argue against that.
However, I feel that based on his statements to the press and to Congress he's misrepresented his interactions with AARO, or at best, he has not been totally transparent. That is where I feel he's damaged his credibility.
----------
Nov 1, 2023 - Statement made by David Grusch to NewsNation's Brian Entin regarding Kirkpatrick's claim that AARO had reached out to Grusch several times but Grusch declined to be interviewed:
"I have zero emails or calls from them. That is a lie." — David Grusch
The first sentence in this statement by Grusch is technically true, but only because AARO did not have his email address or phone number at the time. AARO had made at least 7 invitations over the previous 5 months to Grusch prior to his above statement. Those invitations were extended to Grusch via other AARO interviewees, Congressional staff members and Grusch's associates.
----------
July 26, 2023 - Transcript of House Committee on Government Oversight's hearing on UAPs.
Mr. GRUSCH: Yes. Him (Kirkpatrick) and I had a classified conversation in April 2022 before he took over AARO in July 2022 and I provided him some concerns I had.
Ms. LUNA: Do you know why he might not have followed up with you?
Mr. GRUSCH: Unfortunately, I cannot read his mind. I wish he did. I was happy to give sage counsel to him on where to look when he took the helm of AARO.
Here Grusch supports Luna's characterization of Kirkpatrick "not following up", even though by this date AARO had extended four invitations for an interview via Grusch's associates and Congressional staffers.
Has any read Kirkpatrick's article in Scientific American (April 2024, pp. 67-68)? He is obviously very biased against any UAP activity being alien. In fact, he thinks talk of aliens is nonsense, and anyone, including US Congress Members, are being foolish to consider this possibility. If Gillibrand has not read this article, she needs to.