I'm so sad I missed this. I just listened to the whole thing. I admire Burchett for sticking to his principles even if I don't completely agree with them. in the case of the UAPDA, I think the panel was a good compromise between NatSec and declassing potentially world-changing info. However, there is something to be said for all the bureaucratic nonsense that just adds needless layers and more chances for obfuscations.
If you get a chance, I would love to get Moscowitz on here! I feel like he has a completely different, but equally valid, perspective than Burchett.
For the record.....Published June 29, 2021 by Freedom of the Press Foundation
Fifty years ago today, Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the official record. More lawmakers should follow his lead.
Fifty years ago today, with the New York Times and the Washington Post tied up in the Supreme Court over whether they could report on the leaked Pentagon Papers, a young Senator named Mike Gravel was taking matters into his own hands.
Gravel had just obtained a second copy of the Pentagon Papers from whistleblower (and, much later, Freedom of the Press Foundation co-founder) Daniel Ellsberg, through a midnight curbside handoff from Ben Bagdikian, an editor and journalist at the Post. In an act of remarkable bravery, Gravel convened a subcommittee meeting, and read from the Papers until one A.M., culminating in an emotional description of the violence of war. He then inserted 4,100 pages of the document into the Congressional Record.
In the morning, the Supreme Court cleared the Times and the Post to continue publishing, in one of the most important press freedom decisions in the court's history. h/t Joe Murgia
Burchett seems willing to claim to support uap disclosure. But he repeatedly puts forward bills that won't do anything to help. He also insults and degrades bipartisan bills that would do something.... why do people believe he is pro disclosure?
I'm slowly losing what little confidence I had in Burchett. He always seems more eager to give excuses for why his efforts will fail (corruption, excessive secrecy), than to share a strategy that he feels might be successful.
It's clear Burchett hasn't read Garcia's UAPDA regarding the formation of a UAP Review Board, which would report directly to the House Oversight Committee, of which Burchett is a member (the board would also report to the Senate Homeland Security Committee) This Board could potentially disclose some of the information that the UAP Caucus is seeking.
Additionally, Burchett always touts his UAP disclosure amendment in the House NDAA FY24 (sec. 1090) as pushing for total disclosure, but it's a really poorly written amendment, and I wish the media would call him on it. His amendment allows two huge loopholes for preventing disclosure, assigns no responsibility or methods of enforcement, and leverages no other existing US codes such as those granting whistleblower protection. It's clear Burchett dislikes bureaucracy, but he continually appears out of his depth within the workings of congress on this issue.
I could write off Burchett speaking out against the UAPDA last year, but not again. This guy is either a snake or a moron.
I'm so sad I missed this. I just listened to the whole thing. I admire Burchett for sticking to his principles even if I don't completely agree with them. in the case of the UAPDA, I think the panel was a good compromise between NatSec and declassing potentially world-changing info. However, there is something to be said for all the bureaucratic nonsense that just adds needless layers and more chances for obfuscations.
If you get a chance, I would love to get Moscowitz on here! I feel like he has a completely different, but equally valid, perspective than Burchett.
Please ask any congressman you encounter who is a sponsor of the 2024 UAPDA if, as written, this act would supercede (obviate) the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 . Ref https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1d9oljc/invention_secrecy_act/
Thanks.
For the record.....Published June 29, 2021 by Freedom of the Press Foundation
Fifty years ago today, Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the official record. More lawmakers should follow his lead.
Fifty years ago today, with the New York Times and the Washington Post tied up in the Supreme Court over whether they could report on the leaked Pentagon Papers, a young Senator named Mike Gravel was taking matters into his own hands.
Gravel had just obtained a second copy of the Pentagon Papers from whistleblower (and, much later, Freedom of the Press Foundation co-founder) Daniel Ellsberg, through a midnight curbside handoff from Ben Bagdikian, an editor and journalist at the Post. In an act of remarkable bravery, Gravel convened a subcommittee meeting, and read from the Papers until one A.M., culminating in an emotional description of the violence of war. He then inserted 4,100 pages of the document into the Congressional Record.
In the morning, the Supreme Court cleared the Times and the Post to continue publishing, in one of the most important press freedom decisions in the court's history. h/t Joe Murgia
Burchett seems willing to claim to support uap disclosure. But he repeatedly puts forward bills that won't do anything to help. He also insults and degrades bipartisan bills that would do something.... why do people believe he is pro disclosure?
Great reporting matt
Omg Laslo, thank you, more of this Format please. 🙏🏻
Maybe Luna, other congressional reps or Rubio wants to chat?
Thanks for putting this together Matt!
I'm slowly losing what little confidence I had in Burchett. He always seems more eager to give excuses for why his efforts will fail (corruption, excessive secrecy), than to share a strategy that he feels might be successful.
It's clear Burchett hasn't read Garcia's UAPDA regarding the formation of a UAP Review Board, which would report directly to the House Oversight Committee, of which Burchett is a member (the board would also report to the Senate Homeland Security Committee) This Board could potentially disclose some of the information that the UAP Caucus is seeking.
Additionally, Burchett always touts his UAP disclosure amendment in the House NDAA FY24 (sec. 1090) as pushing for total disclosure, but it's a really poorly written amendment, and I wish the media would call him on it. His amendment allows two huge loopholes for preventing disclosure, assigns no responsibility or methods of enforcement, and leverages no other existing US codes such as those granting whistleblower protection. It's clear Burchett dislikes bureaucracy, but he continually appears out of his depth within the workings of congress on this issue.
Great questions!
Brilliant news. Can’t wait to find out when the hearing will be and who these witnesses are.